Legal Opinion
Gharb v. Mitsubishi Electric Corporation
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided December 11, 2015No. Civil Action No. 2015-0328PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Strike, Request for Attorney’s fees, and Request for Anti-Suit Injunction; Denying as Moot Plaintiff’s First and Second Requests for Payment of Damages
Re Document Nos.: 4, 9, 11, 14
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Samy Gharb has filed a pro se complaint against Mitsubishi Electric Au tomation, Inc. (MEAU), Mitsubishi Electric Corporation (MELCO), and five individuals currently or formerly employed by MELCO in Japan. Mr. Gharb alleges that Defendants infringed U.S.. Patent No. 6,552,654…
2Cases cited47 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Erickson v. PardusSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Estelle v. GambleSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Crumpacker v. Ciraolo-KlepperCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2018
- Kearney v. Unsecured Creditors CommitteeCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2021
- Automatic Equipment Manufacturing Company v. Danko Manufacturing, LLCDistrict Court, D. Nebraska · 2022
- Finnegan v. Sojourn, LLCDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2021
- Fuentes v. AzarDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2020
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.