Pacesetter Systems, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc. And Med Rel Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
HUG, Circuit Judge:
The parties to this patent infringement dispute brought essentially identical actions in district courts in Florida and California to determine the validity of patents on the design of cardiac pacemakers. The California district court, concluding that the litigation filed first in the Florida court would fully resolve the dispute, declined to exercise jurisdiction over the second-filed action and dismissed it. The sole issue in this case is whether the district judge abused his discretion in declining to exercise jurisdiction. We conclude he did not and affirm the dismissal.
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Kerotest Manufacturing Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1952
- Church of Scientology v. United States Department of the ArmyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1979
- Societe De Conditionnement en Aluminium v. Hunter Engineering Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
- William Gluckin & Co., Inc. v. International Playtex CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1969
- Graham & the Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by306 opinions
- Decker Coal Company v. Commonwealth Edison CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- Research Automation, Inc. v. Schrader-Bridgeport International, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010
- Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Products, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. University of Pennsylvania. Appeal of the Trustees of the University of PennsylvaniaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988
- Kohn Law Group, Inc. v. Auto Parts Manufacturing Mississippi, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
301 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.