Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Messerschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm v. Hughes Aircraft Co.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided November 15, 1979No. 79 Civ. 3169 (LBS)PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

SAND, District Judge.

Plaintiff Messerschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm (“MBB”) seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that two patents related to satellite technology, one owned by and the other licensed to defendant Hughes Aircraft Company (“Hughes”), are invalid. The complaint also seeks relief under the antitrust laws for, inter alia, monopolization or attempted monopolization by Hughes, with respect to these patents. Defendant has moved to dismiss this action pursuant to Rules 12(b)(7) and 19(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to join indispensable parties.…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois FoundationSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. Waterman v. MacKenzieSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
  3. A. L. Smith Iron Co. v. DicksonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1944
  4. Caldwell Manufacturing Co. v. Unique Balance Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1955
  5. Hubbard v. Manhattan Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1898

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Zumbro, Inc. v. California Natural ProductsDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1994
  2. Erbamont Inc. v. Cetus Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1989
  3. Delano Farms Co. v. California Table Grape CommissionDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2009
  4. Suprex Corp. v. Lee Scientific, Inc.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1987
  5. Dentsply International, Inc. v. Centrix, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1982

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API