Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Federal Circuit Adds Transfer Analysis to Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction
In Micron Tech., Inc. v. Mosaid Techs., Inc., 2007-1080 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 29, 2008), the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the Northern District of California's dismissal of Micron's declaratory judgment action, holding that a real case and controversy existed between the parties and that the district court should have considered the 'convenience factors' found in a 28 U.S.C. '1404(a) transfer analysis before exercising its discretionary powers to dismiss the action. Micron is one of four major dynamic random access memory chip (DRAM) manufacturers, while Mosaid is an owner of a number of DRAM patents, many of which it licenses to the DRAM producers. Between June 2001 and July 2002, Mosaid sent several strongly worded letters to Micron, and other DRAM manufacturers, suggesting that it license Mosaid's technology. After none of the major DRAM manufacturers took licenses, Mosaid began enforcing its patents in court. By April 6, 2005 Mosaid had sued, and subsequently settled with, all of the major DRAM manufacturers except Micron. After each settlement and license agreement, Mosaid issued public statements that it intended to pursue an aggressive strategy against the remaining DRAM manufacturers. On July 24, 2005, Micron filed a declaratory action in the Northern District of California seeking a declaration of noninfringement of 14 Mosaid patents. The very next day, Mosaid filed an infringement action against Micron in the Eastern District of Texas, which, after an amendment to the complaint, involved ten patents and three defendants in addition to Micron. However, it did not involve six patents for which Micron sought declaratory relief.
Pursuant to a motion by Mosaid, the Northern District of California dismissed the declaratory action, finding no reasonable apprehension of suit. The district court also held that even if subject matter jurisdiction were established, it would exercise its discretion and still decline to hear the case.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?