§Why CasetextPricing

Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc. v. Enzo Life Sciences, Inc.

MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION to Dismiss

18 Cited authorities

  1. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife

    504 U.S. 555 (1992)   Cited 28,078 times   138 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"

  2. Allen v. Wright

    468 U.S. 737 (1984)   Cited 4,781 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, even when plaintiffs allege "one of the most serious injuries recognized in our legal system," it's not justiciable where "the chain of causation between the challenged Government conduct and the asserted injury are far too weak for the chain as a whole to sustain respondents' standing"

  3. City News Novelty, Inc. v. Waukesha

    531 U.S. 278 (2001)   Cited 166 times
    Holding that challenge to adult business licensing determination was moot where plaintiff "has ceased to operate as an adult business and no longer seeks to renew its license"

  4. Burke v. Barnes

    479 U.S. 361 (1987)   Cited 246 times
    Holding that a claim was moot when the legislative bill that it challenged expired by its own terms after the court of appeals entered judgment

  5. United States v. Rene E.

    583 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009)   Cited 107 times
    Holding that "the existence of a longstanding tradition of prohibiting juveniles from both receiving and possessing handguns" places the law at issue in the presumptively lawful category

  6. Diffenderfer v. Gomez-Colon

    587 F.3d 445 (1st Cir. 2009)   Cited 67 times
    Holding that vacatur of district court decision was not proper where case was mooted by intervening legislative act

  7. In re Watts

    354 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 79 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding patent holder waived new argument on the scope of the prior art never raised to the PTAB

  8. Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Quigg

    932 F.2d 920 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 47 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Affirming on merits without comment on jurisdictional issue

  9. Conservolite, Inc. v. Widmayer

    21 F.3d 1098 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 37 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in a § 146 action, evidence pertaining to new issues that were not raised before the PTO may be excluded

  10. Albert v. Kevex Corp.

    729 F.2d 757 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 41 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the disclaimer of the allegedly interfering claims divested the district court of jurisdiction over the § 291 interfering patents action

  11. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 348,617 times   930 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,289 times   1031 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

  13. Section 135 - Derivation proceedings

    35 U.S.C. § 135   Cited 287 times   48 Legal Analyses
    Governing interferences

  14. Section 146 - Civil action in case of derivation proceeding

    35 U.S.C. § 146   Cited 283 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Filing in the Patent and Trademark Office of a certified copy of the judgment

  15. Section 253 - Disclaimer

    35 U.S.C. § 253   Cited 180 times   37 Legal Analyses
    Granting patentee authority to disclaim issued or pending claims

  16. Section 291 - Derived patents

    35 U.S.C. § 291   Cited 77 times   13 Legal Analyses

    (a) IN GENERAL.-The owner of a patent may have relief by civil action against the owner of another patent that claims the same invention and has an earlier effective filing date, if the invention claimed in such other patent was derived from the inventor of the invention claimed in the patent owned by the person seeking relief under this section. (b) FILING LIMITATION.-An action under this section may be filed only before the end of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the issuance of the first

  17. Section 41.203 - Declaration

    37 C.F.R. § 41.203   Cited 15 times   9 Legal Analyses

    (a)Interfering subject matter. An interference exists if the subject matter of a claim of one party would, if prior art, have anticipated or rendered obvious the subject matter of a claim of the opposing party and vice versa. (b)Notice of declaration. An administrative patent judge declares the patent interference on behalf of the Director. A notice declaring an interference identifies: (1) The interfering subject matter; (2) The involved applications, patents, and claims; (3) The accorded benefit