Schlich v. Broad Inst., Inc. (In Re Schlich)

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “it is neither uncommon nor improper for district courts to grant applications made pursuant to § 1782 ex parte” (quotation omitted)
• noting that the “Supreme Court has not established the appropriate burden of proof ... for any of the discretionary factors, or the legal standard required”
• finding no abuse of discretion where the district court “considered all of the arguments and evidence submitted by both parties,[] [and] found [one party’s] position and supporting evidence more convincing”
• applying an abuse-of-discretion standard to review of a dispute over Intel factors
• “The Supreme Court has not established the appropriate burden of proof, if any, for any of the 22 discretionary factors, or the legal standard required to meet that burden.”
• “The Supreme Court has not established the appropriate burden of proof, if any, for any of the 20 discretionary factors, or the legal standard required to meet that burden.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Department of Caldas v. Diageo PLC
  Eleventh Circuit· 2019-06-03· cited 9×
• Cpc Patent Technologies Pty Ltd. v. Apple Inc.
  Ninth Circuit· 2024-10-24· cited 3×
• In re Application of Venequip, S.A. v. Caterpillar Inc.
  Seventh Circuit· 2023-10-10· cited 1×
• In Re: App for an Order v.
  First Circuit· 2021-01-15
• In re: Banco Mercantil Del Norte, S.A v. Cartograf USA, Inc.
  Fourth Circuit· 2025-01-22
• In re: Pilatus Bank PLC Pilatus Bank PLC v. Lawrence Connell
  D. New Hampshire· 2021-05-11

Cites

17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart
  Supreme Court· 1984-05-21· cited 1,798×
• Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
  Supreme Court· 2004-06-21· cited 433×
• In Re Chevron Corp.
  Third Circuit· 2011-02-03· cited 74×
• Euromepa S.A. v. R. Esmerian, Inc.
  Second Circuit· 1995-03-20· cited 73×
• Mees v. Buiter
  Second Circuit· 2015-07-17· cited 70×
• In Re: Patricio Clerici
  Eleventh Circuit· 2007-03-21· cited 66×
• Heraeus Kulzer GmbH v. Biomet, Inc.
  Seventh Circuit· 2011-01-24· cited 60×
• No. 97-5047
  Third Circuit· 1998-07-23· cited 53×
• Certain Funds, Accounts And/Or Investment Vehicles v. KPMG, L.L.P.
  Second Circuit· 2015-08-20· cited 52×
• Application of Consorcio Equatoriano De Telecomunicaciones S.A. v. Jet Air Service Equador S.A.
  Eleventh Circuit· 2014-01-10· cited 40×
• United States v. Camick
  Tenth Circuit· 2015-07-31· cited 31×
• Santiago-Sepúlveda v. Esso Standard Oil Co.
  First Circuit· 2011-04-26· cited 24×
• Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corporation
  Ninth Circuit· 2002-06-06· cited 23×
• In re Asta Medica, S.A.
  First Circuit· 1992-12-04· cited 23×
• In Re Babcock Borsig AG
  D. Massachusetts· 2008-10-30· cited 15×
• Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. v. Fibrogen, Inc.
  Ninth Circuit· 2015-07-16· cited 10×
• Chevron Corp. v. Shefftz
  D. Massachusetts· 2010-12-07· cited 8×