§Why CasetextPricing

University of Pittsburgh of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education v. Varian Medical Systems, Inc.

Reply Memorandum re MOTION to Transfer Case to the US District Court for Western District of Pennsylvania Varian's Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of its Motion to Transfer Action to US District Court for Western District of Pennsylvania

30 Cited authorities

  1. Semtek International Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

    531 U.S. 497 (2001)   Cited 1,357 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "claim-preclusive effect" of a previous decision by a federal court sitting in diversity is governed by "the law that would be applied by state courts in the State in which the federal diversity court sits"

  2. Van Dusen v. Barrack

    376 U.S. 612 (1964)   Cited 4,628 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "change of venue under § 1404 generally should be, with respect to state law, but a change of courtrooms"

  3. Blonder-Tongue v. University Foundation

    402 U.S. 313 (1971)   Cited 2,222 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding issue preclusion inappropriate when "without fault of his own the [party to be precluded] was deprived of crucial evidence or witnesses in the first litigation"

  4. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp

    297 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 742 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs bear the “burden to amend their complaint” to assert claims that are not preempted by ERISA

  5. Wong v. Regents of University of California

    410 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2004)   Cited 625 times
    Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding expert witness testimony where plaintiff failed to timely identify the witness "without substantial justification"

  6. In re Schimmels

    127 F.3d 875 (9th Cir. 1997)   Cited 315 times
    Holding that summary judgment for the defendant in relator’s FCA suit was res judicata as to the Government

  7. Williams v. Bowman

    157 F. Supp. 2d 1103 (N.D. Cal. 2001)   Cited 262 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that although both parties identified witnesses in both districts, defendants identified individuals that would likely testify to the merits of the lawsuit, indicating this factor weighed in defendants' favor

  8. U.S. v. Shanbaum

    10 F.3d 305 (5th Cir. 1994)   Cited 292 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an agreed decision in the tax court prevented the application of the innocent spouse rule in an action to enforce the tax court judgment under res judicata

  9. 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

  10. Manildra Milling Corp. v. Ogilvie Mills, Inc.

    76 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 174 times
    Holding "as a matter of law, a party who has a competitor's patent declared invalid meets the definition of 'prevailing party'" in the "context of patent litigation"

  11. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 156,377 times   194 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  12. Section 1331 - Federal question

    28 U.S.C. § 1331   Cited 97,490 times   134 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."

  13. Rule 11 - Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 11   Cited 35,805 times   143 Legal Analyses
    Holding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney

  14. Rule 16 - Pretrial Conferences; Scheduling; Management

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 16   Cited 33,770 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the sanctions authorized by Rule 37(b)

  15. Section 1404 - Change of venue

    28 U.S.C. § 1404   Cited 28,381 times   184 Legal Analyses
    Granting Class Plaintiffs' motion to transfer action in order to "facilitate a unified settlement approval process together with the class action cases in" In re Amex ASR

  16. Section 1338 - Patents, plant variety protection, copyrights, mask works, designs, trademarks, and unfair competition

    28 U.S.C. § 1338   Cited 5,399 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"

  17. Section 285 - Attorney fees

    35 U.S.C. § 285   Cited 3,199 times   476 Legal Analyses
    Granting district courts discretion to award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in exceptional cases