§Why CasetextPricing

SprinGuard Technology Group Inc. v. United States Patent And Trademark Office et al

MEMORANDUM in Support re Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment

37 Cited authorities

  1. Link v. Wabash Railroad Co.

    370 U.S. 626 (1962)   Cited 23,570 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Rule 41(b)'s allowance for a party to move to dismiss for failure to prosecute did not implicitly abrogate the court's power to dismiss sua sponte

  2. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Assoc. of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.

    463 U.S. 29 (1983)   Cited 6,630 times   50 Legal Analyses
    Holding that " `settled course of behavior embodies the agency's informed judgment that, by pursuing that course, it will carry out the policies [of applicable statutes or regulations]'"

  3. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.

    556 U.S. 502 (2009)   Cited 1,043 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that agencies may not change their policies "sub silentio "

  4. Community Dental Services v. Tani

    282 F.3d 1164 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 434 times
    Holding that a defendant had shown extraordinary circumstances where his attorney disregarded his instructions and purposefully deceived him about the progress of the proceedings

  5. KPS & Associates, Inc. v. Designs by FMC, Inc.

    318 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2003)   Cited 381 times
    Holding that parallel litigation on straightforward contract dispute with primary importance only to the immediate parties did not provide any weight for the piecemeal litigation factor

  6. Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi

    635 F.2d 396 (5th Cir. 1981)   Cited 576 times
    Holding that "any possible malpractice remedy against their attorney would be inadequate to restore the [moving party] to their prejudgment position"

  7. Boughner v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare

    572 F.2d 976 (3d Cir. 1978)   Cited 362 times
    Holding that attorney's failure to oppose motion for summary judgment constituted an extraordinary circumstance warranting relief under Rule 60(b) where attorney failed to file responsive pleadings in fifty-two other cases

  8. Frizelle v. Slater

    111 F.3d 172 (D.C. Cir. 1997)   Cited 168 times
    Holding that a military review board decision should be upheld if it "minimally contain a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made"

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Beverly Enterprises-Ma

    174 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 1999)   Cited 144 times
    Finding failure to bargain to impasse prior to unilateral change constitutes an unfair labor practice under the Act

  10. Fuller v. Quire

    916 F.2d 358 (6th Cir. 1990)   Cited 83 times
    Holding that the district court did not exceed its jurisdiction, and thus rejecting the defendant's attempt to appeal a nonfinal order granting a motion for relief from judgment

  11. Rule 60 - Relief from a Judgment or Order

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 60   Cited 53,562 times   146 Legal Analyses
    Granting relief from the operation of a judgment

  12. Section 706 - Scope of review

    5 U.S.C. § 706   Cited 20,437 times   184 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts jurisdiction to "compel agency action unlawfully held or unreasonably delayed"

  13. Section 41 - Patent fees; patent and trademark search systems

    35 U.S.C. § 41   Cited 99 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a showing of unavoidability to reinstate an expired patent after a lapse of more than twenty-four months

  14. Section 133 - Time for prosecuting application

    35 U.S.C. § 133   Cited 51 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Specifying when an "application shall be regarded as abandoned by the parties thereto"

  15. Section 1.362 - Time for payment of maintenance fees

    37 C.F.R. § 1.362   Cited 7 times

    (a) Maintenance fees as set forth in §§ 1.20 (e) through (g) are required to be paid in all patents based on applications filed on or after December 12, 1980, except as noted in paragraph (b) of this section, to maintain a patent in force beyond 4, 8 and 12 years after the date of grant. (b) Maintenance fees are not required for any plant patents or for any design patents. (c) The application filing dates for purposes of payment of maintenance fees are as follows: (1) For an application not claiming

  16. Section 1.366 - Submission of maintenance fees

    37 C.F.R. § 1.366   Cited 2 times

    (a) The patentee may pay maintenance fees and any necessary surcharges, or any person or organization may pay maintenance fees and any necessary surcharges on behalf of a patentee. A maintenance fee transmittal letter may be signed by a juristic applicant or patent owner. A patentee need not file authorization to enable any person or organization to pay maintenance fees and any necessary surcharges on behalf of the patentee. (b) A maintenance fee and any necessary surcharge submitted for a patent