medimmune
genentech
et
argued
october
decided
january
parties
entered
patent
license
agreement
covering
inter
alia
respondents
patent
application
application
matured
cabilly
ii
patent
respondent
genentech
sent
petitioner
letter
stating
synagis
drug
petitioner
manufactured
covered
cabilly
ii
patent
petitioner
owed
royalties
agreement
although
petitioner
believed
royalties
due
patent
invalid
unenforceable
synagis
infringe
patent
claims
petitioner
considered
letter
clear
threat
enforce
patent
terminate
license
agreement
bring
patent
infringement
action
petitioner
pay
action
resulted
petitioner
ordered
pay
treble
damages
attorney
fees
enjoined
selling
synagis
accounts
percent
sales
revenue
petitioner
paid
royalties
protest
filed
action
declaratory
relief
district
dismissed
claims
lack
jurisdiction
federal
circuit
precedent
patent
licensee
good
standing
establish
article
iii
case
controversy
regard
patent
validity
enforceability
scope
federal
circuit
affirmed
held
contrary
respondents
assertion
freestanding
claim
issue
record
establishes
petitioner
raised
preserved
contract
claim
patent
invalidity
unenforceability
noninfringement
royalties
owing
pp
federal
circuit
erred
affirming
dismissal
action
lack
jurisdiction
standards
determining
whether
particular
action
satisfies
requirement
whether
facts
alleged
circumstances
show
substantial
controversy
parties
adverse
legal
interests
sufficient
immediacy
reality
warrant
relief
maryland
casualty
pacific
coal
oil
satisfied
even
though
petitioner
refuse
make
royalty
payments
license
agreement
threatened
government
action
concerned
plaintiff
required
expose
liability
bringing
suit
challenge
basis
threat
action
inaction
failing
violate
law
eliminates
imminent
threat
prosecution
nonetheless
eliminate
article
iii
jurisdiction
behavior
effectively
coerced
similarly
plaintiff
imminent
injury
coerced
threatened
enforcement
action
private
party
rather
government
lower
federal
state
courts
long
accepted
jurisdiction
decision
point
held
licensee
failure
cease
royalty
payments
render
nonjusticiable
dispute
patent
validity
altvater
freeman
though
altvater
involved
injunction
acknowledged
licensees
option
stopping
payments
defiance
injunction
consequence
risk
actual
treble
damages
infringement
suits
patentees
consequence
also
threatened
case
respondents
assertion
parties
effect
settled
dispute
entered
license
agreement
mistaken
appeal
rule
party
contract
challenge
validity
continue
reap
benefits
also
unpersuasive
lastly
raised
first
time
decide
respondents
request
affirm
dismissal
claims
discretionary
grounds
question
arguments
denial
declaratory
relief
left
lower
courts
remand
pp
reversed
remanded
scalia
delivered
opinion
roberts
stevens
kennedy
souter
ginsburg
breyer
alito
joined
thomas
filed
dissenting
opinion
medimmune
petitioner
genentech
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
federal
circuit
january
justice
scalia
delivered
opinion
must
decide
whether
article
iii
limitation
federal
courts
jurisdiction
cases
controversies
reflected
actual
controversy
requirement
declaratory
judgment
act
requires
patent
licensee
terminate
breach
license
agreement
seek
declaratory
judgment
underlying
patent
invalid
unenforceable
infringed
claims
case
disposed
stage
take
following
facts
allegations
petitioner
amended
complaint
unopposed
declarations
petitioner
submitted
response
motion
dismiss
petitioner
medimmune
manufactures
synagis
drug
used
prevent
respiratory
tract
disease
infants
young
children
petitioner
entered
patent
license
agreement
respondent
genentech
acted
behalf
patent
assignee
behalf
coassignee
respondent
city
hope
license
covered
existing
patent
relating
production
chimeric
antibodies
patent
application
relating
coexpression
immunoglobulin
chains
recombinant
host
cells
petitioner
agreed
pay
royalties
sales
licensed
products
respondents
granted
petitioner
right
make
use
sell
agreement
defined
licensed
products
specified
antibody
manufacture
use
sale
licensed
th
agreement
infringe
one
claims
either
covered
patents
neither
expired
held
invalid
body
competent
jurisdiction
appeal
may
taken
app
license
agreement
gave
petitioner
right
terminate
upon
six
months
written
notice
december
coexpression
application
covered
license
agreement
matured
cabilly
ii
patent
soon
thereafter
respondent
genentech
delivered
petitioner
letter
expressing
belief
synagis
covered
cabilly
ii
patent
expectation
petitioner
pay
royalties
beginning
march
petitioner
think
royalties
owing
believing
cabilly
ii
patent
invalid
claims
event
infringed
synagis
nevertheless
petitioner
considered
letter
clear
threat
enforce
cabilly
ii
patent
terminate
license
agreement
sue
patent
infringement
petitioner
make
royalty
payments
demanded
respondents
prevail
patent
infringement
action
petitioner
ordered
pay
treble
damages
attorney
fees
enjoined
selling
synagis
product
accounted
percent
revenue
sales
since
unwilling
risk
serious
consequences
petitioner
paid
demanded
royalties
protest
reservation
rights
action
followed
petitioner
sought
declaratory
relief
discussed
detail
part
ii
petitioner
also
requested
damages
injunction
respect
federal
state
claims
relevant
district
granted
respondents
motion
dismiss
claims
lack
jurisdiction
relying
decision
appeals
federal
circuit
vysis
held
patent
licensee
good
standing
establish
article
iii
case
controversy
regard
validity
enforceability
scope
patent
license
agreement
obliterate
reasonable
apprehension
licensee
sued
infringement
federal
circuit
affirmed
district
also
relying
granted
certiorari
ii
outset
address
disagreement
concerning
nature
dispute
issue
whether
involves
freestanding
claim
patent
invalidity
rather
claim
patent
invalidity
noninfringement
royalties
owing
license
probably
makes
difference
ultimate
issue
jurisdiction
well
clear
nature
case
us
respondents
contend
petitioner
seeking
interpretation
present
contractual
obligations
brief
respondent
genentech
see
also
brief
respondent
city
hope
claim
two
reasons
dispute
synagis
infringes
cabilly
ii
patent
thereby
making
royalties
payable
dispute
patent
validity
contract
calls
royalties
infringing
product
whether
underlying
patent
valid
see
brief
respondent
genentech
first
point
simply
comport
allegations
petitioner
amended
complaint
first
count
requested
declaratory
judgment
contractual
rights
obligations
stated
petitioner
disputes
obligation
make
payments
license
agreement
petitioner
sale
product
infringe
valid
claim
cabilly
ii
patent
app
contentions
repeated
throughout
complaint
phrase
infringe
valid
claim
emphasis
added
thought
challenge
patent
validity
since
elsewhere
amended
complaint
unmistakable
clarity
patent
infringed
petitioner
synagis
product
petitioner
owes
payments
license
agreements
respondents
second
point
petitioner
assuredly
contend
obligation
license
pay
royalties
invalid
patent
contention
frivolous
true
license
requires
petitioner
pay
royalties
patent
claim
held
invalid
competent
body
cabilly
ii
patent
license
issue
lear
adkins
similarly
provided
royalties
paid
time
held
invalid
rejected
argument
repudiating
licensee
must
comply
contract
pay
royalties
claim
vindicated
express
opinion
whether
nonrepudiating
licensee
similarly
relieved
contract
obligation
successful
challenge
patent
validity
applicability
licensee
estoppel
circumstances
cf
studiengesellschaft
kohle
shell
oil
ca
fed
licensee
invoke
protection
lear
doctrine
actually
ceases
payment
royalties
ii
provides
notice
licensor
reason
ceasing
payment
royalties
deemed
relevant
claims
invalid
need
determine
whether
petitioner
alleged
contractual
dispute
done
respondents
argue
petitioner
waived
contract
claim
failing
argue
brief
respondent
genentech
tr
oral
arg
record
reveals
however
petitioner
raised
contract
point
federal
circuit
see
brief
medimmune
nos
ca
fed
medimmune
seeking
define
rights
obligations
contract
genentech
precisely
type
action
declaratory
judgment
act
contemplates
petitioner
limited
contract
argument
pages
appellate
brief
suggest
waiver
merely
reflects
counsel
sound
assessment
argument
futile
federal
circuit
precedent
precluded
jurisdiction
petitioner
contract
claims
panel
authority
overrule
determined
petitioner
raised
preserved
contract
turn
jurisdictional
question
iii
declaratory
judgment
act
provides
case
actual
controversy
within
jurisdiction
may
declare
rights
legal
relations
interested
party
seeking
declaration
whether
relief
sought
time
harbored
doubts
compatibility
actions
article
iii
requirement
see
willing
chicago
auditorium
liberty
warehouse
grannis
see
also
gordon
appx
last
opinion
taney
published
posthumously
award
execution
essential
part
every
judgment
passed
exercising
judicial
power
dispelled
doubts
however
nashville
wallace
holding
case
involving
declaratory
judgment
rendered
state
appropriate
action
declaratory
relief
case
controversy
article
iii
federal
declaratory
judgment
act
signed
law
following
year
upheld
constitutionality
aetna
life
ins
haworth
opinion
explained
phrase
case
actual
controversy
act
refers
type
cases
controversies
justiciable
article
iii
aetna
cases
following
draw
brightest
lines
actions
satisfy
requirement
decisions
required
dispute
definite
concrete
touching
legal
relations
parties
adverse
legal
interests
real
substantial
admi
specific
relief
decree
conclusive
character
distinguished
opinion
advising
law
upon
hypothetical
state
facts
maryland
casualty
pacific
coal
oil
summarized
follows
basically
question
case
whether
facts
alleged
circumstances
show
substantial
controversy
parties
adverse
legal
interests
sufficient
immediacy
reality
warrant
issuance
declaratory
judgment
dispute
standards
satisfied
petitioner
taken
final
step
refusing
make
royalty
payments
license
agreement
respondents
claim
right
royalties
licensing
agreement
petitioner
asserts
royalties
owing
cabilly
ii
patent
invalid
infringed
alleges
without
contradiction
threat
respondents
enjoin
sales
royalties
forthcoming
factual
legal
dimensions
dispute
well
defined
petitioner
continuing
make
royalty
payments
nothing
dispute
render
unfit
judicial
resolution
assuming
without
deciding
respondents
claim
anticipatory
breach
repudiate
license
continuation
royalty
payments
makes
otherwise
imminent
threat
least
remote
nonexistent
long
payments
made
risk
respondents
seek
enjoin
petitioner
sales
petitioner
acts
words
eliminate
imminent
threat
question
us
whether
causes
dispute
longer
case
controversy
within
meaning
article
iii
analysis
must
begin
recognition
threatened
action
government
concerned
require
plaintiff
expose
liability
bringing
suit
challenge
basis
threat
example
constitutionality
law
threatened
enforced
plaintiff
action
inaction
failing
violate
law
eliminates
imminent
threat
prosecution
nonetheless
eliminate
article
iii
jurisdiction
example
terrace
thompson
state
threatened
plaintiff
forfeiture
farm
fines
penalties
entered
lease
alien
violation
state
land
law
given
genuine
threat
enforcement
require
prerequisite
testing
validity
law
suit
injunction
plaintiff
bet
farm
speak
taking
violative
action
see
also
village
euclid
ambler
realty
ex
parte
young
likewise
steffel
thompson
require
plaintiff
proceed
distribute
handbills
risk
actual
prosecution
seek
declaratory
judgment
regarding
constitutionality
state
statute
prohibiting
distribution
rehnquist
put
concurrence
declaratory
judgment
procedure
alternative
pursuit
arguably
illegal
activity
cases
plaintiff
eliminated
imminent
threat
harm
simply
claimed
right
enter
lease
distribute
handbills
shopping
center
preclude
jurisdiction
behavior
effectively
coerced
see
terrace
supra
steffel
supra
dilemma
posed
coercion
putting
challenger
choice
abandoning
rights
risking
prosecution
dilemma
purpose
declaratory
judgment
act
ameliorate
abbott
laboratories
gardner
jurisprudence
rare
regarding
application
declaratory
judgment
act
situations
plaintiff
imminent
injury
coerced
threatened
enforcement
action
private
party
rather
government
lower
federal
courts
however
state
courts
interpreting
declaratory
judgment
acts
requiring
actual
controversy
long
accepted
jurisdiction
cases
see
keener
oil
gas
consolidated
gas
utilities
american
machine
metals
de
bothezat
impeller
hess
country
club
park
cal
bank
theater
moore
see
also
advisory
committee
note
fed
rule
civ
proc
decision
point
fortuitously
close
facts
case
us
altvater
freeman
held
licensee
failure
cease
payment
royalties
render
nonjusticiable
dispute
validity
patent
litigation
several
patentees
sued
licensees
enforce
territorial
restrictions
license
licensees
filed
counterclaim
declaratory
judgment
underlying
patents
invalid
meantime
paying
protest
royalties
required
injunction
patentees
obtained
earlier
case
patentees
argued
long
licensees
continue
pay
royalties
academic
real
controversy
parties
rejected
argument
held
claim
presented
justiciable
case
controversy
fact
royalties
paid
make
dispute
hypothetical
abstract
character
ibid
quoting
aetna
royalties
paid
protest
compulsion
injunction
decree
nless
injunction
decree
modified
course
action
defy
risk
actual
treble
damages
infringement
suits
concluded
requirements
case
controversy
met
payment
claim
demanded
right
payment
made
involuntary
coercive
nature
exaction
preserves
right
recover
sums
paid
challenge
legality
claim
federal
circuit
decision
distinguished
altvater
ground
involved
compulsion
injunction
altvater
readily
dismissed
never
mind
injunction
privately
obtained
ultimately
within
control
patentees
permit
modification
fundamentally
contrary
federal
circuit
conclusion
altvater
say
coercion
dispositive
case
governmental
suggested
opposite
opinion
acknowledged
licensees
option
stopping
payments
defiance
injunction
explained
consequence
risk
actual
treble
damages
infringement
suits
patentees
significantly
mention
threat
prosecution
contempt
sort
governmental
sanction
moreover
cited
approvingly
treatise
said
actual
threatened
serious
injury
business
employment
private
party
coercive
forms
coercion
supporting
restitution
actions
common
law
imperil
man
livelihood
business
enterprises
solvency
ordinarily
quite
coercive
example
detaining
property
woodward
law
quasi
contracts
cited
altvater
supra
jurisdiction
present
case
contradicted
willing
chicago
auditorium
association
ground
lessee
wanted
demolish
antiquated
auditorium
replace
modern
commercial
building
lessee
believed
right
without
lessors
consent
unwilling
drop
wrecking
ball
first
test
belief
later
declaratory
judgment
act
time
federal
applicable
state
law
lessee
filed
action
remove
cloud
lease
held
article
iii
case
controversy
arisen
defendant
ha
wronged
plaintiff
ha
threatened
true
one
colessors
disagreed
lessee
interpretation
lease
happened
informal
friendly
private
conversation
year
lawsuit
filed
lessee
never
even
bothered
approach
went
remark
hat
plaintiff
seeks
simply
declaratory
judgment
grant
relief
beyond
power
conferred
upon
federal
judiciary
willing
decided
enactment
upholding
declaratory
judgment
act
legal
disagreement
parties
lively
one
confident
different
result
obtained
rule
plaintiff
must
destroy
large
building
bet
farm
risk
treble
damages
loss
percent
business
seeking
declaration
actively
contested
legal
rights
finds
support
article
respondents
assert
parties
effect
settled
dispute
entered
license
agreement
licensee
enters
agreement
contend
essentially
purchases
insurance
policy
immunizing
suits
infringement
long
continues
pay
royalties
challenge
covered
patents
permitting
challenge
validity
patent
without
terminating
breaking
agreement
alters
deal
allowing
licensee
continue
enjoying
immunity
bringing
suit
elimination
part
patentee
quid
pro
quo
course
even
valid
argument
force
regard
petitioner
claim
agreement
call
royalties
product
infringe
patent
even
patent
invalidity
claim
point
seems
us
mistaken
begin
clear
prohibition
challenging
validity
patents
found
hardly
implied
mere
promise
pay
royalties
patents
neither
expired
held
invalid
body
competent
jurisdiction
appeal
may
taken
app
promising
pay
royalties
patents
held
invalid
amount
promise
seek
holding
invalidity
respondents
appeal
rule
party
contract
one
time
challenge
validity
continue
reap
benefits
citing
commodity
credit
rosenberg
kingman
stoddard
lear
contend
suspend
rule
patent
licensing
agreements
since
plaintiff
case
already
repudiated
contract
even
lear
repudiation
doctrine
licensee
estoppel
limited
point
said
earlier
opine
hard
see
rule
application
petitioner
repudiating
impugning
contract
continuing
reap
benefits
rather
asserting
contract
properly
interpreted
prevent
challenging
patents
require
payment
royalties
patents
cover
products
invalid
course
even
respondents
correct
licensing
agreement
rule
precludes
suit
consequence
respondents
win
case
merits
genuine
contract
dispute
disappears
article
iii
jurisdiction
somehow
defeated
short
article
iii
jurisdiction
nothing
contention
lastly
respondents
urge
us
affirm
dismissal
claims
discretionary
grounds
declaratory
judgment
act
provides
may
declare
rights
legal
relations
interested
party
emphasis
added
must
text
long
understood
confer
federal
courts
unique
substantial
discretion
deciding
whether
declare
rights
litigants
wilton
seven
falls
see
also
cardinal
chemical
morton
brillhart
excess
ins
america
found
consistent
statute
however
vest
district
courts
discretion
first
instance
facts
bearing
usefulness
declaratory
judgment
remedy
fitness
case
resolution
peculiarly
within
grasp
wilton
supra
district
gave
consideration
discretionary
dismissal
since
despite
serious
misgivings
federal
circuit
rule
considered
bound
dismiss
app
pet
cert
discretionary
dismissal
irrelevant
federal
circuit
reason
respondents
raised
issue
first
time
exchanging
competing
accusations
inequitable
conduct
petitioner
see
brief
respondent
genentech
reply
brief
petitioner
circumstances
imprudent
us
decide
whether
district
must
decline
issue
requested
declaratory
relief
leave
equitable
prudential
policy
arguments
favor
discretionary
dismissal
lower
courts
consideration
remand
similarly
available
consideration
remand
arguments
denial
declaratory
relief
hold
petitioner
required
insofar
article
iii
concerned
break
terminate
license
agreement
seeking
declaratory
judgment
federal
underlying
patent
invalid
unenforceable
infringed
appeals
erred
affirming
dismissal
action
lack
jurisdiction
judgment
appeals
reversed
cause
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
medimmune
petitioner
genentech
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
federal
circuit
january
justice
thomas
dissenting
granted
certiorari
case
determine
whether
patent
licensee
good
standing
must
breach
license
prior
challenging
validity
underlying
patent
pursuant
declaratory
judgment
act
answer
question
yes
consistently
held
parties
standing
obtain
rulings
matters
remain
hypothetical
conjectural
also
held
declaratory
judgment
procedure
used
obtain
advanced
rulings
matters
addressed
future
case
actual
controversy
medimmune
sought
declaratory
judgment
precisely
purpose
therefore
affirm
appeals
holding
article
iii
jurisdiction
medimmune
claim
reaches
opposite
result
extending
holding
steffel
thompson
private
contractual
obligations
respectfully
dissent
article
iii
constitution
limits
judicial
power
adjudication
cases
controversies
held
declaratory
judgment
act
extends
controversies
constitutional
sense
aetna
life
ins
haworth
context
declaratory
judgment
actions
cases
provided
uniform
framework
assessing
whether
article
iii
case
controversy
exists
constitutional
sense
controversy
distinguished
difference
dispute
hypothetical
abstract
character
one
academic
moot
ibid
citing
alaska
controversy
must
definite
concrete
touching
legal
relations
parties
adverse
legal
interests
finally
must
real
substantial
controversy
distinguished
opinion
advising
law
upon
hypothetical
state
facts
declaratory
judgment
act
alter
constitutional
definition
case
controversy
relax
article
iii
command
actual
case
controversy
exist
federal
courts
may
adjudicate
question
see
maryland
casualty
pacific
coal
oil
thus
held
operation
declaratory
judgment
act
procedural
aetna
life
words
act
merely
provides
different
procedure
bringing
actual
case
controversy
federal
applied
principle
aetna
life
insurance
company
brought
declaratory
judgment
action
insured
claimed
become
disabled
formally
presented
claims
refused
make
insurance
payments
course
deciding
entertain
insurer
declaratory
judgment
action
specifically
noted
insured
filed
traditional
cause
action
first
question
controversy
justiciable
nature
accordingly
act
merely
provided
different
procedural
tool
allowed
insurance
company
bring
otherwise
justiciable
controversy
federal
also
held
controversy
exists
declaratory
judgment
plaintiff
attempts
obtain
premature
ruling
potential
defenses
typically
adjudicated
later
actual
controversy
coffman
breeze
patent
owner
brought
declaratory
judgment
action
licensees
seeking
royalty
adjustment
act
declared
unconstitutional
enjoin
licensees
paying
accrued
royalties
government
held
case
controversy
existed
validity
royalty
adjustment
act
properly
arise
defense
suit
patentholder
licensees
recover
royalties
accordingly
complaint
issue
request
advisory
opinion
validity
defense
suit
recovery
royalties
noted
declaratory
judgment
procedure
may
made
medium
securing
advisory
opinion
controversy
arisen
ibid
see
also
calderon
ashmus
holding
prisoner
may
use
declaratory
judgment
action
determine
validity
defense
state
might
raise
future
habeas
proceeding
principles
apply
equal
force
patent
licensing
context
altvater
freeman
quite
unremarkably
held
licensee
standing
bring
declaratory
judgment
counterclaim
asserting
affirmative
defense
patent
invalidity
response
patent
infringement
suit
mistaken
altvater
expressly
stated
hold
patent
valid
infringed
decide
hypothetical
case
cardinal
chemical
morton
affirmative
defense
patent
invalidity
raised
counterclaim
patent
infringement
suit
although
held
finding
noninfringement
appeal
moot
counterclaim
alleging
invalidity
stated
holding
limited
jurisdiction
appellate
reiterated
trial
course
party
seeking
declaratory
judgment
burden
establishing
existence
actual
case
controversy
ii
foregoing
background
case
us
justiciable
case
controversy
article
iii
threshold
matter
disagree
characterization
case
including
contractual
dispute
ante
substantiate
characterization
points
count
medimmune
complaint
entitled
judgment
contactual
rights
medimmune
broad
allegations
product
infringe
valid
claim
cabilly
ii
patent
ante
nowhere
complaint
medimmune
state
sale
product
infringe
valid
claim
cabilly
ii
patent
app
given
lack
specificity
complaint
hardly
surprising
never
explains
supposed
contract
dispute
actually
fair
reading
amended
complaint
review
litigation
thus
far
shows
medimmune
contract
count
simply
posits
patent
invalid
unenforceable
alleged
counts
ii
iii
medimmune
bound
contractual
obligations
admits
license
requires
medimmune
pay
royalties
patent
claim
held
invalid
competent
body
ante
emphasis
original
thus
even
assuming
existence
cognizable
contract
claim
validity
claim
hinges
entirely
upon
determination
patent
validity
independent
contractual
question
medimmune
contract
claim
simply
repackages
patent
invalidity
claim
probably
reason
medimmune
pursued
contract
claim
level
litigation
district
stated
product
subject
license
synagis
covered
patents
issue
app
medimmune
never
challenged
characterization
federal
circuit
decided
case
sole
ground
licensee
good
standing
may
bring
declaratory
judgment
action
challenge
validity
underlying
patent
without
threat
apprehension
patent
infringement
suit
see
question
medimmune
presented
petition
certiorari
accepted
without
alteration
says
nothing
contract
claim
neither
medimmune
opening
brief
allege
contractual
dispute
even
oral
argument
medimmune
amicus
alleged
contract
dispute
issue
case
tr
oral
arg
short
medimmune
rais
preserv
contract
claim
ante
reaching
contrary
conclusion
identification
contract
claim
probably
makes
difference
ultimate
outcome
case
ante
may
well
true
broad
scope
holding
facts
us
present
case
controversy
article
iii
medimmune
filed
declaratory
judgment
action
challenging
validity
cabilly
ii
patent
threat
sued
genentech
patent
infringement
medimmune
licensee
good
standing
made
necessary
royalty
payments
thus
voluntarily
entering
abiding
license
agreement
genentech
medimmune
removed
threat
suit
see
ante
stating
threat
suit
remote
nonexistent
medimmune
actions
entering
continuing
comply
license
agreement
deprived
genentech
cause
action
medimmune
additionally
medimmune
cause
action
genentech
patent
invalidity
affirmative
defense
patent
infringement
freestanding
cause
action
see
therefore
declaratory
judgment
act
must
something
alternative
procedure
bringing
otherwise
actual
case
controversy
federal
see
aetna
life
operation
declaratory
judgment
act
procedural
neither
genentech
medimmune
cause
action
medimmune
prayer
declaratory
relief
reasonably
understood
seeking
advisory
opinion
affirmative
defense
might
use
future
litigation
medimmune
wants
know
whether
decides
breach
license
agreement
genentech
genentech
sues
patent
infringement
successful
affirmative
defense
presumably
upon
favorable
determination
medimmune
stop
making
royalty
payments
knowing
advance
federal
courts
stand
behind
decision
yet
demonstrated
declaratory
judgment
act
allow
federal
courts
give
advisory
rulings
potential
success
affirmative
defense
cause
action
even
accrued
calderon
dismissing
suit
attempt
ed
gain
litigation
advantage
obtaining
advance
ruling
affirmative
defense
see
also
coffman
rejecting
use
declaratory
judgment
act
medium
securing
advisory
opinion
controversy
arisen
medimmune
therefore
asked
courts
render
opinion
advising
law
upon
hypothetical
state
facts
aetna
life
supra
see
also
public
serv
utah
wycoff
disagreement
must
nebulous
contingent
must
taken
fixed
final
shape
federal
consistent
article
iii
provide
medimmune
opinion
finally
plainly
stated
context
counterclaim
declaratory
judgment
action
challenging
validity
patent
hold
patent
valid
infringed
decide
hypothetical
case
altvater
course
medimmune
presents
exactly
case
based
clear
reading
precedent
hold
case
presents
actual
case
controversy
iii
reach
today
result
misreads
precedent
expands
concept
coercion
steffel
reach
voluntarily
accepted
contractual
obligations
private
parties
inappropriately
relies
altvater
inapplicable
case
three
reasons
first
altvater
affirmative
defense
patent
invalidity
arose
declaratory
judgment
motion
filed
counterclaim
patent
infringement
suit
see
second
opinion
altvater
proceeds
understanding
license
existed
district
appeals
already
held
underlying
license
terminated
prior
filing
case
royalties
demanded
royalties
paid
paid
compulsion
injunction
decree
third
related
though
licensee
continued
pay
royalties
compulsion
injunction
entered
prior
case
ibid
altvater
simply
held
unique
facts
case
appeals
erred
considering
declaratory
judgment
counterclaim
moot
involuntary
coercive
nature
exaction
preserve
right
recover
sums
paid
challenge
legality
claim
ibid
cardinal
chemical
morton
similarly
inapt
case
altvater
defendant
raised
affirmative
defense
patent
invalidity
counterclaim
patent
infringement
suit
specifically
held
finding
noninfringement
appeal
moot
counterclaim
alleging
invalidity
stressed
issue
us
therefore
concern
jurisdiction
intermediate
appellate
jurisdiction
trial
trial
course
party
seeking
declaratory
judgment
burden
establishing
existence
actual
case
controversy
went
offer
hypothetical
showed
party
seek
declaratory
judgment
patent
litigation
even
patentee
filed
infringement
action
ibid
however
hypothetical
involved
threatened
infringement
suit
competitor
licensee
continued
sell
allegedly
infringing
product
faced
growing
liability
hypothesized
situation
paralleled
facts
aetna
life
ins
patentee
cause
action
alleged
infringer
brought
suit
moment
declaratory
judgment
procedure
simply
offered
alleged
infringer
different
method
bringing
otherwise
justiciable
case
controversy
serious
error
extension
steffel
supra
apply
voluntarily
accepted
contractual
obligations
private
parties
ever
taken
broad
view
steffel
steffel
held
certain
limited
circumstances
party
anticipatory
cause
action
qualified
case
controversy
article
iii
based
expressly
coercive
nature
governmental
power
found
necessary
petitioner
first
expose
actual
arrest
prosecution
entitled
challenge
statute
claims
deters
exercise
constitutional
rights
emphasis
added
limited
governmental
power
particularly
power
arrest
prosecution
steffel
says
nothing
coercion
context
private
contractual
obligations
therefore
surprising
today
never
applied
steffel
theory
coercion
private
contractual
obligations
indeed
ever
done
majority
extends
steffel
cases
involve
governmental
coercion
also
extends
steffel
rationale
coercion
understood
used
term
steffel
apply
genentech
threatened
medimmune
patent
infringement
suit
absence
license
agreement
point
medimmune
choice
declaratory
plaintiff
steffel
either
cease
otherwise
protected
activity
selling
synagis
continue
activity
face
threat
lawsuit
medimmune
faced
choice
medimmune
continue
selling
product
without
threat
suit
eliminated
risk
suit
entering
license
agreement
holding
voluntary
choice
enter
agreement
avoid
coerced
choice
coerced
goes
far
beyond
steffel
majority
explains
coercive
nature
exaction
preserves
right
challenge
legality
claim
ante
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
coercive
nature
exaction
answer
voluntarily
made
license
payments
threat
suit
holding
contractual
obligations
sufficiently
coercive
allow
party
bring
declaratory
judgment
action
majority
given
every
patent
licensee
cause
action
free
pass
around
article
iii
requirements
challenging
validity
licensed
patents
reasoning
today
opinion
applies
patent
validity
suits
indeed
today
opinion
contains
limiting
principle
whatsoever
casting
aside
justice
stewart
understanding
steffel
use
exceedingly
rare
concurring
opinion
foregoing
reasons
respectfully
dissent
footnotes
hereinafter
invalidity
unenforceability
referred
simply
invalidity
similar
abbreviation
positive
validity
enforceability
adjectival
valid
invalid
enforceable
unenforceable
forms
dissent
contends
question
granted
certiorari
reach
contract
claim
post
opinion
thomas
think
otherwise
question
specifically
refers
license
agreement
contention
patent
infringed
pet
cert
unmistakable
meaning
royalties
owing
contract
addition
agreeing
respondents
despite
face
complaint
case
involve
contract
claim
post
dissent
evidently
thinks
contract
claim
weak
however
goes
merits
claim
existence
courts
jurisdiction
alleged
lack
specificity
complaint
post
jurisdictional
matter
dissent
observes
district
assumed
synagis
patents
issue
post
quoting
app
quoted
statement
taken
district
separate
opinion
granting
summary
judgment
petitioner
antitrust
claims
purposes
earlier
ruling
whether
synagis
infringed
patent
irrelevant
harm
accepting
respondents
contention
point
tells
us
nothing
however
petitioner
contract
claim
district
later
jurisdictional
holding
respect
respondents
obviously
agree
said
district
facts
case
purposes
motion
identical
facts
like
medimmune
filed
action
seeking
declaratory
judgment
owes
nothing
license
agreement
genentech
sales
allegedly
infringe
valid
claim
cabilly
ii
patent
cabilly
ii
patent
invalid
cabilly
ii
patent
unenforceable
infringe
cabilly
ii
patent
app
nos
ca
fed
record
citations
omitted
dissent
asserts
petitioner
allege
contract
claim
opening
brief
oral
argument
post
demonstrably
false
see
brief
petitioner
cabilly
ii
patent
infringed
royalties
due
license
summary
argument
purpose
declaratory
judgment
act
allow
contracting
parties
resolve
disputes
without
breach
without
risking
economic
destruction
multiplying
damages
holding
disrupt
law
licenses
contracts
throughout
economy
essentially
undoing
achievement
reformers
tr
oral
arg
saying
contract
dispute
purpose
declaratory
judgment
act
contracts
resolved
without
breach
contract
claim
clear
record
page
joint
appendix
think
needs
said
dissent
also
asserts
validity
contract
claim
hinges
entirely
upon
determination
patent
validity
since
license
requires
medimmune
pay
royalties
patent
claim
held
invalid
competent
body
post
quoting
infra
true
license
required
royalties
products
sun
practice
patent
course
dissent
asserts
post
declaratory
judgment
procedure
used
obtain
advanced
rulings
matters
addressed
future
case
actual
controversy
preceding
discussion
shows
dissent
point
simply
defense
raised
means
judgment
action
actual
controversy
premature
phrasing
argument
dissent
done
begs
question
whether
actual
ripe
controversy
coffman
breeze
cited
post
support
dissent
view
none
parties
cited
patent
owner
sued
enjoin
licensee
paying
accrued
royalties
government
royalty
adjustment
act
sought
attack
constitutionality
act
held
request
declaratory
judgment
injunction
nonjusticiable
patent
owner
asserted
right
recover
royalties
indication
licensee
even
raise
act
defense
suit
royalties
case
dissent
cites
point
calderon
ashmus
simply
holds
litigant
may
use
action
obtain
piecemeal
adjudication
defenses
finally
conclusively
resolve
underlying
controversy
course
case
justiciability
problem
arises
party
seeking
declaratory
relief
preventing
injury
occurring
described
terms
standing
whether
plaintiff
threatened
imminent
injury
fact
trace
able
challenged
action
defendant
lujan
defenders
wildlife
terms
ripeness
whether
sufficient
hardship
parties
withholding
consideration
enforcement
action
abbott
laboratories
gardner
respondents
acknowledge
standing
ripeness
boil
question
case
brief
respondent
genentech
brief
respondent
city
hope
dissent
claims
cited
cases
rely
coercion
inherent
making
contractual
payments
post
true
relied
put
matter
dissent
puts
coercion
inherent
complying
claimed
contractual
obligations
dissent
fails
explain
contractual
obligation
payment
magically
different
obviously
view
course
relevant
coercion
compliance
claimed
contractual
obligation
rather
consequences
failure
dissent
incorrectly
asserts
altvater
required
actual
infringement
quoting
wildly
context
twice
emphasis
altvater
statement
hold
patent
valid
infringed
decide
hypothetical
case
post
quoting
passage
quotation
plucked
altvater
distinguishing
earlier
decision
electrical
fittings
thomas
betts
involved
affirmative
defense
patent
invalidity
become
moot
light
finding
infringement
full
quotation
district
electrical
fittings
adjudged
claim
patent
valid
although
dismissed
bill
failure
prove
infringement
held
finding
validity
immaterial
disposition
cause
winning
party
might
appeal
obtain
reformation
decree
hold
patent
valid
infringed
decide
hypothetical
case
situation
present
case
quite
different
bill
answer
counterclaim
though
decision
disposes
bill
answer
dispose
counterclaim
raises
question
validity
altvater
supra
omitted
full
quotation
makes
clear
snippet
quoted
dissent
nothing
whether
infringement
must
actual
merely
threatened
indeed
makes
clear
appropriate
cases
hold
noninfringed
patent
valid
decide
hypothetical
case
though
dissent
acknowledges
central
lesson
altvater
post
payment
royalties
coercive
circumstances
eliminate
jurisdiction
attempts
limit
rationale
particular
facts
altvater
none
altvater
unique
facts
post
suggests
different
test
applies
royalty
payments
conclusory
assertion
payments
voluntarily
made
post
dissent
never
explains
threat
treble
damages
loss
percent
petitioner
business
fall
within
altvater
coercion
rationale
even
altvater
distinguished
injunction
case
still
contradict
federal
circuit
reasonable
apprehension
suit
test
evolved
form
reasonable
apprehension
imminent
suit
test
teva
pharm
usa
pfizer
licensee
pays
royalties
compulsion
injunction
apprehension
imminent
harm
licensee
pays
royalties
fear
treble
damages
injunction
fatal
business
test
also
conflicts
decisions
maryland
casualty
pacific
coal
oil
jurisdiction
obtained
even
though
defendant
sued
without
first
obtaining
judgment
insured
aetna
life
ins
haworth
jurisdiction
obtained
even
though
reason
insurer
sought
declaratory
relief
insured
given
indication
file
suit
also
tension
cardinal
chemical
morton
held
appellate
affirmance
judgment
noninfringement
eliminating
apprehension
suit
moot
declaratory
judgment
counterclaim
patent
invalidity
dissent
objects
supposed
extension
steffel
thompson
apply
voluntarily
accepted
contractual
obligations
private
parties
post
criticism
misdirected
several
respects
coercion
principle
upon
rely
today
originate
steffel
thompson
see
supra
opportunity
extend
private
litigation
altvater
freeman
already
see
supra
moreover
even
today
decision
described
extension
steffel
private
litigation
dissent
identifies
principled
reason
extension
appropriate
article
iii
favor
litigants
challenging
threatened
government
enforcement
action
litigants
challenging
threatened
private
enforcement
action
indeed
latter
perhaps
easier
category
cases
presents
none
difficult
issues
federalism
comity
wrestled
steffel
see
dissent
accuses
misapplying
steffel
rationale
post
contends
steffel
apply
respondents
threatened
petitioner
patent
infringement
suit
absence
license
agreement
petitioner
put
choice
selling
product
facing
suit
post
dissent
argues
license
payments
voluntarily
made
ibid
one
uses
word
voluntarily
loosely
applied
equal
justification
lack
thereof
steffel
plaintiff
voluntary
refusal
distribute
handbills
find
threat
treble
damages
loss
percent
petitioner
business
every
bit
coercive
modest
penalties
misdemeanor
trespass
threatened
steffel
ignoring
consequences
threatened
action
case
dissent
claim
today
opinion
contains
limiting
principle
whatsoever
post
footnotes
addition
fact
medimmune
identify
anywhere
record
provision
contract
issue
suggests
contractual
provision
construed
breach
advisory
committee
notes
fed
rule
civ
proc
pp
additionally
lear
adkins
little
case
addressed
propriety
extent
doctrine
licensee
estoppel
licensee
lear
ceased
making
payments
license
agreement
fact
makes
case
singularly
inapposite
lear
involve
declaratory
judgment
act
case
brought
action
failure
pay
royalties
admitting
decisions
rare
ante
cites
cases
predating
steffel
hold
may
construe
contractual
provisions
prior
breach
cases
rely
coercion
inherent
making
contractual
payments
see
keener
oil
gas
consolidated
gas
util