Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Sandisk Corp. v. ST Microelectronics, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
480 F.3d 1372 (2007)


Facts

SanDisk Corporation (plaintiff) owned patents associated with flash-memory storage products. ST Microelectronics, Inc. (ST) (defendant) also owned patents covering similar products. In 2004, ST sent a letter to SanDisk requesting a meeting to discuss a licensing agreement, and listing a number of patents that ST believed SanDisk might be interested in licensing. After prolonged correspondence, the parties held a licensing meeting, during which ST claimed that SanDisk had infringed ST’s patents. Nevertheless, ST told SanDisk that ST had no intention of suing SanDisk. SanDisk suggested another meeting but also indicated that it was confident in its position. After several failed attempts to establish another meeting, SanDisk filed a declaratory judgment action against ST, seeking a declaration of non-infringement and that the relevant ST patents were invalid. ST filed a motion to dismiss the claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The district court granted the motion, finding that no actual controversy existed because SanDisk did not have an objectively reasonable apprehension of suit by ST. SanDisk appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Linn, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Concurrence (Bryson, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.