Federal Judiciary

Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing Granted

By Michael C. Smith

MHL Tek, LLC v. General Motors Corp., --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2009 WL 901334(E.D.Tex. Mar 31, 2009) (NO. CIV.A. 2:08-CV-0125)
Judge: T. John Ward
Holding: Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing GRANTED
This is a patent case dealing with tire monitoring system on cars.  The defendants had filed FRCP 12(b)(1) motions claiming lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs did not have standing to assert the claims with respect to two of the three patents in suit because they didn't own them.  Judge Ward agreed and granted the motion.  Interestingly, Judge Ward noted that a parallel action against other defendants based on claims of infringement of the same patents was previously filed in his court. See MHL TEK, LLC v. Nissan Motor Co., et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-289-TJW (hereinafter MHL I ). Readers might recognize MHL I as the case giving rise to the venue opinion and the Federal Circuit's two recent In re VW opinions on venue.  Not the Fifth Circuit's In re VW, though.  Defendants from MHL I had previously filed motions to dismiss that case based on the same grounds as the present motion.  According to my notes, that motion was granted last September as to these two patents as well

Full post as published by Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice on June 10, 2009 (boomark / email).