§Why CasetextPricing

QR Spex, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. et al

REPLY to Response to Motion re Joint MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

52 Cited authorities

  1. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson

    444 U.S. 286 (1980)   Cited 11,014 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an Oklahoma court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over a car retailer when the retailer's only connection to Oklahoma was the fact that a car sold in New York became involved in an accident in Oklahoma

  2. Asahi Metal Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court

    480 U.S. 102 (1987)   Cited 4,952 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in suit by Taiwanese manufacturer for indemnification against Japanese manufacturer, the assertion by California court of personal jurisdiction over Japanese manufacturer was unreasonable

  3. United States v. Bestfoods

    524 U.S. 51 (1998)   Cited 1,440 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that ownership and control is insufficient to demonstrate an alter-ego relationship

  4. Doe v. Unocal Corp.

    248 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 950 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding "court may consider evidence" on motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)

  5. Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB

    205 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 2000)   Cited 712 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that general jurisdiction did not exist where the defendant occasionally sold products to entities in Texas that used the defendant's products for projects in Texas and the defendant's employees made field visits to Texas between December 1992 and December 1993

  6. Revell v. Lidov

    317 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2002)   Cited 575 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding sales of thirty-five subscriptions in two years insufficient for general jurisdiction

  7. Beverly Hills Fan Co. v. Royal Sovereign Corp.

    21 F.3d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 572 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the forum's interest in discouraging injuries within its territory extends to patent infringement actions

  8. Kelly v. Syria Shell Petroleum Development

    213 F.3d 841 (5th Cir. 2000)   Cited 365 times
    Holding district court did not abuse its discretion to deny jurisdictional discovery on alter ego theory in light of three declarations submitted by defendants controverting same

  9. Patin v. Thoroughbred Power Boats Inc.

    294 F.3d 640 (5th Cir. 2002)   Cited 309 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in Louisiana, "the law of the state of incorporation governs the determination when to pierce a corporate veil"

  10. Manville Sales Corp. v. Paramount Systems

    917 F.2d 544 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 389 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for officers "to be personally liable for [their employer's] infringement under section 271, there must be evidence to justify piercing the corporate veil"

  11. Section 1404 - Change of venue

    28 U.S.C. § 1404   Cited 29,082 times   191 Legal Analyses
    Granting Class Plaintiffs' motion to transfer action in order to "facilitate a unified settlement approval process together with the class action cases in" In re Amex ASR

  12. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 23,110 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Providing for service via CM/ECF Systems

  13. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 6,144 times   1082 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"