Telectronics Pacing Systems, Inc. v. Ventritex, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “[t]here was no certainty that the device when approved would be the same device that began clinical trials”
• affirming the dismissal of a complaint where “[t]here was no certainty that the device when approved would be the same device that began clinical trials”
• “Even assuming an actual controversy, the exercise of a court’s jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action is discretionary.”
• patent infringement suit unripe where accused defibrillator had only begun clinical trials and was years away from FDA approval
• “A count under the Declaratory Judgment Act should be distinguished from a count under 35 U.S.C. § 271 for patent infringement.”
• declaratory judgment actions evidencing a conflict of sufficient immediacy and reality should be allowed to proceed

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).