Legal Opinion
In-TECH MARKETING INC. v. Hasbro, Inc.
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided June 9, 1988No. Civ. A. 87-2753PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WOLIN, District Judge.
In the underlying action plaintiffs assert that defendants have violated the patent laws of the United States. Defendant now moves (i) to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims under Rule 12(b)(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed.R.Civ.P.”) if Lolo Sports, Inc., a non-resident Canadian Corporation, and its principal, Robert Hodgins, are not joined as indispensable parties pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 19 and (ii) that defendant cor poration Elson, N.V. should be re-aligned in this action as a plaintiff. Both of these motions are denied for the following reasons.
A.…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Waterman v. MacKenzieSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Indianapolis v. Chase Nat. BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Independent Wireless Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Takeda v. Northwestern National Life InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
- Field v. Volkswagenwerk AGCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Branham v. Ford Motor Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2010
- DP Environmental Services, Inc. v. BertlesenDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · 1993
- Dr. Fred Hatfield's Sport-Strength Training Equipment Co. v. BalikDistrict Court, M.D. Florida · 1997
- Benford v. Johnson & JohnsonDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2021
- Branham v. Ford Motor Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2010
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.