19 Cited authorities

Medimmune, Inc. v. GenenTech, Inc.
549 U.S. 118 (2007) Cited 2,628 times 91 Legal Analyses
Holding "the phrase 'case of actual controversy' in the Act refers to the types of 'Cases' and 'Controversies' that are justiciable under Article III"
Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.
569 U.S. 576 (2013) Cited 456 times 148 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated"
Prasco, LLC v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp.
537 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Cited 300 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that one prior lawsuit concerning different products, without more, was not sufficient to sustain an actual controversy
Arris Group v. British Telecommunications
639 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Cited 139 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that "an express accusation [of infringement] is unnecessary"
Matthews International Corp. v. Biosafe Engineering, LLC
695 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 65 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a standing analysis “must be calibrated to the particular facts of each case”
Innovative Therapies v. Kinetic Concepts
599 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2010) Cited 60 times
Holding defendant's "history of litigation against others, and general propensity to enforce its legal rights, did not establish an actual controversy between [the parties] over a device that [the defendant] had not seen and evaluated"
Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
689 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 52 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding various plaintiffs lacked standing in declaratory judgment action because alleged injuries were too speculative
Microchip Tech. v. Chamberlain Group
441 F.3d 936 (Fed. Cir. 2006) Cited 61 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that, where sole injury alleged was economic harm to declaratory plaintiff caused by patentee's purported threatening of its customers, "[s]uch an economic interest alone . . . cannot form the basis of an `actual controversy' under the Declaratory Judgment Act."
Organic Seed Growers & Trade Ass'n v. Monsanto Co.
718 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2013) Cited 38 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that patentee's “representations unequivocally disclaim[ing] any intent to sue appellant” were “binding as a matter of judicial estoppel”
Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Alberta Telecommunications Research Centre
892 F. Supp. 2d 1226 (N.D. Cal. 2012) Cited 4 times
No. C 12–3293 PJH. 2012-08-31 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff, v. ALBERTA TELECOMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH CENTRE, et al., Defendants. Id. at 1375. PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON Keith Leonard Slenkovich, Jane Yu–Jeng Huang, Palo Alto, CA, for Plaintiff. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS , District Judge. The motion of defendants Alberta Telecommunications Research Centre and TR Technologies, Inc. (“TR Labs”) came on for hearing before this court on August 29, 2012. Plaintiff appeared by its counsel Louis Trompos
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 358,269 times 949 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Section 1331 - Federal question
28 U.S.C. § 1331 Cited 100,124 times 139 Legal Analyses
Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 99,217 times 679 Legal Analyses
Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
Section 1391 - Venue generally
28 U.S.C. § 1391 Cited 28,884 times 199 Legal Analyses
Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred
Rule 33 - Interrogatories to Parties
Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 Cited 11,218 times 22 Legal Analyses
Adopting Rule 30(b)
Section 271 - Infringement of patent
35 U.S.C. § 271 Cited 6,144 times 1082 Legal Analyses
Holding that testing is a "use"
Section 1338 - Patents, plant variety protection, copyrights, mask works, designs, trademarks, and unfair competition
28 U.S.C. § 1338 Cited 5,490 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"

Ucp International Company Limited et al v. Balsam Brands Inc. et al

19 Cited authorities

Holding "the phrase 'case of actual controversy' in the Act refers to the types of 'Cases' and 'Controversies' that are justiciable under Article III"

Holding that "a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated"

Holding that one prior lawsuit concerning different products, without more, was not sufficient to sustain an actual controversy

Holding that "an express accusation [of infringement] is unnecessary"

Holding that a standing analysis “must be calibrated to the particular facts of each case”

Holding defendant's "history of litigation against others, and general propensity to enforce its legal rights, did not establish an actual controversy between [the parties] over a device that [the defendant] had not seen and evaluated"

Holding various plaintiffs lacked standing in declaratory judgment action because alleged injuries were too speculative

Holding that, where sole injury alleged was economic harm to declaratory plaintiff caused by patentee's purported threatening of its customers, "[s]uch an economic interest alone . . . cannot form the basis of an `actual controversy' under the Declaratory Judgment Act."

Holding that patentee's “representations unequivocally disclaim[ing] any intent to sue appellant” were “binding as a matter of judicial estoppel”

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred

Adopting Rule 30(b)

Holding that testing is a "use"

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