107 Cited authorities

Franchise Tax Bd. v. Laborers Vacation Trust
463 U.S. 1 (1983) Cited 10,447 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a preemption defense even where "both parties admit that the defense is the only question truly at issue in the case"
Associated General Contractors v. Carpenters
459 U.S. 519 (1983) Cited 5,035 times 34 Legal Analyses
Holding that a union lacked standing to sue for injuries passed on to it by intermediaries
Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr
518 U.S. 470 (1996) Cited 2,417 times 35 Legal Analyses
Holding that the presence of a state-law damages remedy for violations of FDA requirements does not impose an additional requirement upon medical device manufacturers but "merely provides another reason for manufacturers to comply with . . . federal law"
Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp.
486 U.S. 800 (1988) Cited 3,130 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that the appeal belonged before the regional circuit because the claims did not arise under patent law
Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001) Cited 4,852 times 2 Legal Analyses
Concluding that the gathering and dissemination of pricing information by the petroleum companies through an independent industry service did not imply collusive action where there was no evidence the information was misused as a basis for an unlawful conspiracy; rather, evidence suggested that individual companies used all available resources “to determine capacity, supply, and pricing decisions which would maximize their own individual profits”
Zenith Corp. v. Hazeltine
395 U.S. 100 (1969) Cited 2,449 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court erred when it enjoined a nonparty that was never determined to be in active concert with a defendant
Blonder-Tongue v. University Foundation
402 U.S. 313 (1971) Cited 2,223 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding issue preclusion inappropriate when "without fault of his own the [party to be precluded] was deprived of crucial evidence or witnesses in the first litigation"
Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.
20 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 1999) Cited 2,422 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that for an act to be "unfair," it must "threaten" a violation of law or "violate the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law"
Blank v. Kirwan
39 Cal.3d 311 (Cal. 1985) Cited 3,024 times
Holding that the standard for a failure to state a claim is whether "the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action"
Reid v. Google, Inc.
50 Cal.4th 512 (Cal. 2010) Cited 1,088 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that a high degree of foreseeability is required to impose a duty to hire security guards and that “the requisite degree of foreseeability rarely, if ever, can be proven in the absence of prior similar incidents of violent crime on the landowner's premises”
Section 112 - Specification
35 U.S.C. § 112 Cited 7,280 times 1025 Legal Analyses
Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it
Section 1338 - Patents, plant variety protection, copyrights, mask works, designs, trademarks, and unfair competition
28 U.S.C. § 1338 Cited 5,399 times 71 Legal Analyses
Granting exclusive jurisdiction to the district courts "of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, . . . copyrights and trademarks"
Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses
35 U.S.C. § 282 Cited 3,896 times 136 Legal Analyses
Granting a presumption of validity to patents
Section 355 - New drugs
21 U.S.C. § 355 Cited 2,246 times 338 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to change the date on which an ANDA may be approved if "either party to the action failed to reasonably cooperate in expediting the action"
Section 135 - Derivation proceedings
35 U.S.C. § 135 Cited 286 times 43 Legal Analyses
Governing interferences

IN RE CIPRO CASES I & II

107 Cited authorities

Holding that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a preemption defense even where "both parties admit that the defense is the only question truly at issue in the case"

Holding that a union lacked standing to sue for injuries passed on to it by intermediaries

Holding that the presence of a state-law damages remedy for violations of FDA requirements does not impose an additional requirement upon medical device manufacturers but "merely provides another reason for manufacturers to comply with . . . federal law"

Holding that the appeal belonged before the regional circuit because the claims did not arise under patent law

Holding that the district court erred when it enjoined a nonparty that was never determined to be in active concert with a defendant

Holding issue preclusion inappropriate when "without fault of his own the [party to be precluded] was deprived of crucial evidence or witnesses in the first litigation"

Holding that for an act to be "unfair," it must "threaten" a violation of law or "violate the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law"

Holding that the standard for a failure to state a claim is whether "the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action"

Holding that a high degree of foreseeability is required to impose a duty to hire security guards and that “the requisite degree of foreseeability rarely, if ever, can be proven in the absence of prior similar incidents of violent crime on the landowner's premises”

Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

Granting exclusive jurisdiction to the district courts "of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, . . . copyrights and trademarks"

Granting a presumption of validity to patents

Granting the court discretion to change the date on which an ANDA may be approved if "either party to the action failed to reasonably cooperate in expediting the action"

Governing interferences