Arkema Inc. v. Honeywell International, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that it is not “necessary that a patent holder make specific accusations” of infringement against the declaratory judgment plaintiff
• concluding that prior litigation was a “sufficient affirmative act on the part of 2 the patentee for declaratory judgment purposes”
• concluding that prior litigation was a “sufficient affirmative act on the part of the patentee for declaratory judgment purposes”
• noting absence of “uncertainty about whether the supplier’s product is going to be used in a way that might or might not infringe the patentee’s rights”
• litigation in related U.S. and 21 European litigation “create[d] a sufficient affirmative act on the part of the patentee for declaratory 22 judgment purposes”
• U.S. litigation over “closely related” patents supports a finding of an active and substantial controversy between the parties under the DJA

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).