16 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 236,388 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"
Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore
439 U.S. 322 (1979) Cited 4,239 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that district courts have discretion to refuse to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel against a defendant if such an application of the doctrine would be unfair
State of California v. Campbell
138 F.3d 772 (9th Cir. 1998) Cited 951 times
Holding that party seeking a continuance must make clear what information is sought and how it would preclude summary judgment
Hernandez v. Spacelabs Medical Inc.
343 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 609 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding plaintiff's own statements that discriminatory acts occurred in "late 1998 or 1999," without additional support, were "insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment"
DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co.
471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006) Cited 517 times 27 Legal Analyses
Holding that the record supported jury verdict of no induced infringement where it showed defendant contacted an Australian attorney and "obtained letters from U.S. patent counsel advising that [its product] did not infringe"
Sandisk v. Stmicroelectronics
480 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Cited 313 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that "where a patentee asserts rights under a patent based on certain identified ongoing or planned activity of another party, and where that party contends that it has the right to engage in the accused activity without license, an Article III case or controversy will arise"
Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. U.S. Philips
363 F.3d 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Cited 314 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that an expert's unsupported and conclusory assertions are insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact
Benitec Aus. v. Nucleonics
495 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Cited 235 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that the possibility of future activity that would be subject to a patent infringement claim was too uncertain to create a justiciable controversy
Contemporary Mission, v. U.S. Postal Service
648 F.2d 97 (2d Cir. 1981) Cited 367 times
Finding that "opposing party's mere hope that further evidence may develop prior to trial is an insufficient basis upon which to justify the denial of [a summary judgment] motion."
Pharmacia Upjohn Co. v. Mylan Pharm
170 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Cited 174 times 5 Legal Analyses
Finding the weight of authority in agreement that a judgment is final for estoppel purposes notwithstanding the filing of post-trial motions.
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 328,985 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Rule 11 - Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 Cited 35,819 times 143 Legal Analyses
Holding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney

Sandisk Corporation v. Lucent Technologies Inc. et al

16 Cited authorities

Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

Holding that district courts have discretion to refuse to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel against a defendant if such an application of the doctrine would be unfair

Holding that party seeking a continuance must make clear what information is sought and how it would preclude summary judgment

Holding plaintiff's own statements that discriminatory acts occurred in "late 1998 or 1999," without additional support, were "insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment"

Holding that the record supported jury verdict of no induced infringement where it showed defendant contacted an Australian attorney and "obtained letters from U.S. patent counsel advising that [its product] did not infringe"

Holding that "where a patentee asserts rights under a patent based on certain identified ongoing or planned activity of another party, and where that party contends that it has the right to engage in the accused activity without license, an Article III case or controversy will arise"

Holding that an expert's unsupported and conclusory assertions are insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact

Holding that the possibility of future activity that would be subject to a patent infringement claim was too uncertain to create a justiciable controversy

Finding that "opposing party's mere hope that further evidence may develop prior to trial is an insufficient basis upon which to justify the denial of [a summary judgment] motion."

Finding the weight of authority in agreement that a judgment is final for estoppel purposes notwithstanding the filing of post-trial motions.

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Holding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney