§Why CasetextPricing

Tyco Healthcare Group LP et al v. E-Z-EM, Inc.

MOTION to Dismiss

12 Cited authorities

  1. Warth v. Seldin

    422 U.S. 490 (1975)   Cited 11,829 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Article III requires plaintiffs "to establish that, in fact, the asserted injury was the consequence of the defendants' actions"

  2. FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas

    493 U.S. 215 (1990)   Cited 2,365 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the burden is on the plaintiff to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction (quoting McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936))

  3. Intellectual Property Development, Inc. v. TCI Cablevision of California, Inc.

    248 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 199 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a licensee had an exclusive license even though the license was granted subject to a prior nonexclusive license

  4. Fieldturf v. S.W. Recreational Industries

    357 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 72 times
    Granting summary judgment on federal and state antitrust claims because "the antitrust law of the Commonwealth is so similar to its federal counterpart, the Sherman Antitrust Act, and may be interpreted where appropriate with regard to federal law, the Court shall dispatch with the claim under KY. REV. STAT. 367.175 upon its analysis of the federal antitrust claim"

  5. Beam Laser Systems, Inc. v. Cox Communications, Inc.

    117 F. Supp. 2d 515 (E.D. Va. 2000)   Cited 38 times
    Holding that patent-holding corporation's sole shareholder, an individual, did not have equitable title in the corporation's patents

  6. Merial Ltd. v. Intervet Inc.

    430 F. Supp. 2d 1357 (N.D. Ga. 2006)   Cited 7 times
    Granting motion to dismiss the parent corporation's infringement suit because "standing under the Patent Act cannot be based on the mere fact that [the subsidiary] is a wholly-owned subsidiary of [the parent company]"

  7. Site Microsurgical Systems v. Cooper Co.

    797 F. Supp. 333 (D. Del. 1992)   Cited 20 times
    Rejecting argument that parent company of subsidiary patent holder had standing to sue for infringement, even though parent argued that it effectively controlled patent and had suffered lost sales of its product as a result of the infringement

  8. Pipe Liners, Inc. v. American Pipe Plastics

    893 F. Supp. 704 (S.D. Tex. 1995)   Cited 7 times
    Finding standing was proper where a parent owned a patent-holder subsidiary, where the matter would proceed regardless of whether the parent were joined as plaintiff

  9. 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 344,399 times   920 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

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

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 21,878 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

  11. Section 281 - Remedy for infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 281   Cited 643 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Providing that " patentee shall have remedy by civil action for infringement of his patent"

  12. Section 1 - Establishment

    35 U.S.C. § 1   Cited 505 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Noting that Congress did not intend to change these "narrowing interpretations"