H.R. Technologies, Inc. v. Astechnologies, 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 the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the plaintiffs complaint without prejudice for lack of standing
• holding that a claim for attorney fees under § 285 is independently within the district court’s federal question jurisdiction
• approving the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
• applying Farmer to conclude that a defendant in a patent infringement case has standing to appeal a without-prejudice dismissal after moving to dismiss with prejudice
• applying Farmer to conclude that a defendant in a patent infringement case has standing to appeal a without-prejudice dismissal after moving to dismiss with prejudice
• “In order to have standing, the plaintiff in an action for patent infringement must be a ‘patentee’ pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 100(d) and 281 ..., ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).