Cat Tech LLC v. Tubemaster, Inc.

151 Citing cases

  1. Prasco, LLC v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp.

    537 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 302 times   6 Legal Analyses
    In Prasco, LLC v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., the court found that there was no actual case or controversy because the defendant had not asserted rights against the plaintiff and the defendant was unaware of the plaintiff's product.

    Rather, it provides a remedy available only if the court has jurisdiction from some other source. Cat Tech LLC v. TubeMaster, Inc., 528 F.3d 871, 879 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240, 57 S.Ct. 461, 81 L.Ed. 617 (1937)). Such jurisdiction is limited by Article III of the Constitution, which restricts federal judicial power to the adjudication of "Cases" or "Controversies."

  2. 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”

    “Whether an actual controversy exists under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a), is a question of law that is subject to plenary appellate review.” Cat Tech LLC v. TubeMaster, Inc., 528 F.3d 871, 878 (Fed.Cir.2008). Review of the dismissal of Matthews' state-law claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted is likewise subject to de novo appellate review.

  3. Mattews International, Corporation v. Biosafe Eng.

    Civil Action No. 11-269 (W.D. Pa. Sep. 27, 2011)

    Until recently, the Federal Circuit applied a two-prong test to determine whether jurisdiction was proper in declaratory judgment actions. See Cat Tech LLC v. TubeMaster, Inc., 528 F.3d 871, 879 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The first prong looked to whether the patentee had created a "reasonable apprehension" of suit in the mind of the declaratory plaintiff.

  4. Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co.

    Case No. 14-cv-03103 (SRN/FLN) (D. Minn. Mar. 29, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    MedImmune, 549 U.S. at 127. Even assuming that all the prerequisites for a declaratory judgment have been met, however, the district court's exercise of its authority is discretionary. Cat Tech LLC v. TubeMaster, Inc., 528 F.3d 871, 883 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in MedImmune, the Federal Circuit applied a two-prong test to determine whether there was an actual controversy in suits requesting a declaration of noninfringement, invalidity, or unenforceability.

  5. Organic Seed Growers & Trade Ass'n v. Monsanto Co.

    851 F. Supp. 2d 544 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Acknowledging that contamination could result in “Monsanto's patented traits appear[ing] inadvertently” in a conventional farmer's fields

    Although “there is no bright-line rule for determining whether an action satisfies the case or controversy requirement,” id. at 1336, and “the analysis must be calibrated to the particular facts of each case,” Cat Tech LLC v. TubeMaster, Inc., 528 F.3d 871, 879 (Fed.Cir.2008), the Supreme Court has articulated a basic test that every dispute must satisfy. A declaratory judgment plaintiff must demonstrate that “the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.”

  6. Bon-Aire Indus., Inc. v. Viatek Consumer Prods. Grp., Inc.

    Case No. 1:13-CV-00403-EJL (D. Idaho May. 13, 2014)   Cited 2 times

    (Dkt. 17 at 6.) Upon considering the pleadings and all of the circumstances presented in the current record of this case, however, the Court finds that an actual case or controversy has not been shown at this time. See Cat Tech LLC v. TubeMaster, Inc., 528 F.3d 871, 880 and 883 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (MedImmune requires that "all the circumstances" must be considered when making a justiciability determination.). For this reason, the Court will dismiss the eight claims but grant Viatek leave to refile its claims if it is able to make the jurisdictional showing. Viatek filed a Declaration of its counsel "affirm[ing] the statement in Viatek's memorandum in opposition to [Bon-Aire's] motion...that, during conversations between counsel, when the topic of potential design-arounds was discussed, counsel for Bon-Aire gave [sic] me to understand that design changes would likely run afoul of the other patents noted in the complaint."

  7. IPS Corp. v. WCM Indus., Inc.

    No. 2:12-cv-02694-JPM-tmp (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 29, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    In addition, "[i]n deciding whether to entertain a declaratory judgment request, a court must determine whether resolving the case serves the objectives for which the Declaratory Judgment Act was created." Cat Tech LLC v. TubeMaster, Inc., 528 F.3d 871, 883 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Regarding the first element that a plaintiff must allege, "the bedrock rule [is] that a case or controversy must be based on a real and immediate injury or threat of future injury that is caused by the defendants — an objective standard that cannot be met by a purely subjective or speculative fear of future harm."

  8. AIDS Healthcare Found., Inc. v. Gilead Scis., Inc.

    890 F.3d 986 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 8 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding no induced infringement where there was no underlying act of direct infringement

    773 F.3d at 1278. In Cat Tech LLC v. TubeMaster, Inc., 528 F.3d 871, 880 (Fed. Cir. 2008), the court elaborated that "the issue of whether there has been meaningful preparation to conduct potentially infringing activity remains an important element in the totality of circumstances which must be considered in determining whether a declaratory judgment is appropriate," citing Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. , 482 F.3d 1330, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2007), for the principle that " MedImmune requires that a court look at ‘all the circumstances’ to determine whether a justiciable Article III controversy exists." For "[i]f a declaratory judgment plaintiff has not taken significant, concrete steps to conduct infringing activity, the dispute is neither ‘immediate’ nor ‘real’ and the requirements for justiciability have not been met."

  9. Team Angry Filmworks, Inc. v. Geer

    214 F. Supp. 3d 432 (W.D. Pa. 2016)   Cited 2 times

    After MedImmune , whether there has been potentially infringing activity or meaningful preparation to conduct potentially infringing activity " ‘remains an important element in the totality of circumstances [that] must be considered in determining whether a declaratory judgment is appropriate’ " in an intellectual property dispute. SeePrasco, L.L.C. v. Medicis Pharm. Corp. , 537 F.3d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Cat Tech L.L.C. v. TubeMaster, Inc. , 528 F.3d 871, 881 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ). If a declaratory-judgment plaintiff has not taken "significant, concrete steps to conduct infringing activity," the dispute is neither " ‘immediate’ nor ‘real’ and the requirements for justiciability have not been met." Cat Tech L.L.C. , 528 F.3d at 880 (quoting Lang v. Pac. Marine & Supply Co. , 895 F.2d 761, 765 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ). Put another way, in order to demonstrate "a ‘case or controversy’ in a declaratory relief action, ‘the plaintiff must have actually produced the accused article or have engaged in preparations for production such that’ but for a finding that the product infringes or for extraordinary and unforeseen contingencies, the plaintiff would and could begin production immediately.

  10. Team Angry Filmworks, Inc. v. Geer

    171 F. Supp. 3d 437 (W.D. Pa. 2016)   Cited 8 times

    After MedImmune, whether there has been potentially infringing activity or meaningful preparation to conduct potentially infringing activity “ ‘remains an important element in the totality of circumstances [that] must be considered in determining whether a declaratory judgment is appropriate’ ” in an intellectual property dispute. SeePrasco, L.L.C. v. Medicis Pharm. Corp. , 537 F.3d 1329, 1336 (Fed.Cir.2008) (quoting Cat Tech L.L.C. v. TubeMaster, Inc. , 528 F.3d 871, 881 (Fed.Cir.2008) ). If a declaratory-judgment plaintiff has not taken “significant, concrete steps to conduct infringing activity,” the dispute is neither “ ‘immediate’ nor ‘real’ and the requirements for justiciability have not been met.” Cat Tech L.L.C. , 528 F.3d at 880 (quoting Lang v. Pac. Marine & Supply Co. , 895 F.2d 761, 765 (Fed.Cir.1990) ).B. Plaintiff fails to present a justiciable controversy in this case.