Herman v. William Brooks Shoe Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
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
- Waterman v. MacKenzieSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- United States v. Fred F. Solomon, Jr., United States of America v. George G. NicoladzeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- Filby v. BrooksAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
- Gilson v. Republic of IrelandDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1984
- Scholnick v. SchatzDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1989
3Cited by1 opinion
- Lans v. GATEWAY 2000, INC.District Court, District of Columbia · 1999