Electronics for Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that dismissal of first-filed action is improper where “the court’s decision is left to rest exclusively on the alleged anticipatory nature of [plaintiff's] suit”
• holding that dismissal of first-filed action is improper where “the court’s decision is left to rest exclusively on the alleged anticipatory nature of [plaintiff's] suit”
• noting that a district court may consider a party’s intent to preempt another’s infringement suit, which is “merely one factor in the analysis”
• explaining that the first-filed rule is favored “in the absence of circumstances making it ‘unjust or inefficient’ to permit a first-filed action to proceed to judgment”
• stating that exceptions to the first-filed rule are not rare
• stating that exceptions to the first-filed rule are not rare

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

30 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• SanDisk Corp. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2007-03-26· cited 169×
• Micron Technology, Inc. v. Mosaid Technologies, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2008-02-29· cited 81×
• Futurewei Technologies, Inc. v. Acacia Research Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 2013-12-03· cited 46×
• Innovative Therapies, Inc. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2010-04-01· cited 34×
• Pfizer Inc. v. Apotex Inc.
  N.D. Illinois· 2009-06-12· cited 30×
• Communications Test Design v. Contec, LLC
  Federal Circuit· 2020-03-13· cited 27×
• Lexington Insurance v. Rolison
  S.D. Alabama· 2006-05-17· cited 25×
• Speedfit LLC v. Woodway USA, Inc.
  E.D. New York· 2014-10-10· cited 23×
• Touchtunes Music Corp. v. Rowe International Corp.
  S.D. New York· 2009-12-15· cited 22×
• Shire U.S., Inc. v. Johnson Matthey, Inc.
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 2008-02-14· cited 17×
• Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent & Trademark Office
  S.D. New York· 2009-11-02· cited 10×
• Authentify Patent Co. v. Strikeforce Technologies, Inc.
  W.D. Washington· 2014-07-31· cited 9×
• Intervet, Inc. v. Merial Ltd.
  District of Columbia· 2008-02-29· cited 8×
• Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Eisai Co., Ltd.
  Federal Circuit· 2010-10-06· cited 7×
• Ford Motor Co. v. United States
  Court of International Trade· 2010-07-22· cited 7×
• SAS Institute, Inc. v. Practicingsmarter, Inc.
  M.D. North Carolina· 2005-01-14· cited 7×
• Silver Line Building Products LLC v. J-Channel Industries Corp.
  E.D. New York· 2014-03-24· cited 6×
• Nexans Inc. v. Belden Inc.
  D. Delaware· 2013-08-06· cited 6×
• Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Genentech, Inc.
  E.D. Texas· 2009-03-19· cited 5×
• Intema Limited v. Ntd Laboratories, Inc.
  E.D. New York· 2009-09-12· cited 5×

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Wilton v. Seven Falls Co.
  Supreme Court· 1995-06-12· cited 2,521×
• Arrowhead Industrial Water, Inc. v. Ecolochem, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1988-05-06· cited 204×
• Bp Chemicals Limited v. Union Carbide Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 1993-09-15· cited 191×
• Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company, and the Regents of the University of California
  Federal Circuit· 1993-09-23· cited 188×
• Electronics for Imaging, Inc. v. Jan R. Coyle and Kolbet Labs
  Federal Circuit· 2003-09-04· cited 177×
• EMC Corp. v. Norand Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 1996-07-11· cited 99×
• The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company v. Releasomers, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1987-07-01· cited 83×
• Serco Services Company, L.P. v. Kelley Company, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1995-03-29· cited 63×
• Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. v. Norton Company
  Federal Circuit· 1991-03-27· cited 51×
• Capo, Inc. v. Dioptics Medical Products, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2004-10-25· cited 37×
• J & L Electronics, LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2004-02-09· cited 1×