K. P. v. STATEWIDE, J. P.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that although plaintiff represented that its patent was no longer infringed by the defendant, the court had jurisdiction in the case and the plaintiff could challenge the dismissal with prejudice because the dismissal with prejudice could affect its future legal rights
• concurring with FDA policy and Teva Pharm. v. Food & Drug Admin., 182 F.3d 1003, 1009 (D.C.Cir.1999
• “[T]he [Hatch-Waxman Act’s] provisions on the exclusivity period should not be read to reach nonsensical results.”
• no mootness if collateral consequences are not unduly conjectural

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).