Legal Opinion

Herman v. William Brooks Shoe Co.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided May 17, 1995No. 94 Civ. 8232 (PKL)PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM ORDER

LEISURE, District Judge:

This is an action by Jack Herman (“Herman”) for patent infringement. Several defendants (“moving defendants”)1 have moved to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), alleging that Herman, who currently has no proprietary interest in the patent, lacks standing; and pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(7), alleging that Jack Herman Dri-Sox, Inc. (“Dri-Sox”), a corporation to which Herman assigned his interest in the patent, is an indispensable party without which this action cannot go forward. For the reasons stated below, moving defendants’ motion to dismiss…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Waterman v. MacKenzieSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
  2. United States v. Fred F. Solomon, Jr., United States of America v. George G. NicoladzeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
  3. Filby v. BrooksAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
  4. Gilson v. Republic of IrelandDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1984
  5. Scholnick v. SchatzDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1989

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Lans v. GATEWAY 2000, INC.District Court, District of Columbia · 1999

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API