COURSE PRODUCT #2

CASE CHART

ELEMENT EMC Corp. v. Norand Corp., Aetna Life Insurance v. Haworth, Shell Oil Co. v. Amoco Corp., Medimmune, Inc. v.
89 F.3d 807 (1996) 300 U.S. 227, 81 L. Ed. 617, 57 S. 970 F.2d 885 (1992) Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S.
July 11, 1996 · United States Ct. 461 (1937) July 28, 1992 · United States 118, 166 L. Ed. 2d 604,
Court of Appeals for the March 1, 1937 · Supreme Court Court of Appeals for the 127 S. Ct. 764 (2007)
Federal Circuit · No. 95-1540 of the United States · No. 446 Federal Circuit · No. 91-1364
89 F.3d 807 300 U.S. 227, 81 L. Ed. 617, 57 S. 970 F.2d 885
Ct. 461, 1937 U.S. LEXIS 1147,
SCDB 1936-068
Application of
the YES NO NO NO
“reasonable
apprehension
of suit test”
The dispute
was definite NO YES YES YES
and concrete
There is an
actual YES YES YES NO
controversy
There is a
controversy in YES YES YES YES
the
constitutional
sense
“When there is no actual “The Declaratory Judgment Act “Although the district court “The declaratory
controversy, the court has no of 1934, in its limitation to- is given the discretion, in judgement procedure
discretion to decide the case. “cases of actual controversy”, declaratory judgments cannot be used to obtain
When there is an actual manifestly has regard to the actions, to dismiss the case, advanced ruling on
ArgumentRati controversy and thus constitutional provision and is there are boundaries to that matters that would be
onale jurisdiction, the exercise of operative only in respect to discretion.” addressed in a future
that jurisdiction is controversies which are such in case of actual
discretionary.” the constitutional sense.” “When there is an actual controversy”
controversy and a
“Simply because there is an “The Declaratory Judgment Act declaratory judgment would “Basically, the question

actual controversy between
the parties does not mean
that the district court is
required to exercise that
jurisdiction”
Year of Case 1996
Court United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal
Circuit
Issue
Ranking PERSUASIVE
Holding “The district court was able
to determine from the
undisputed facts that this
case was not one that
furthered the objectives of
the Declaratory Judgment
Act. In light of the limited
scope of our review, we
cannot conclude that the
district court’s decision on
that issue was so contrary to
“the teachings and
experience concerning the
functions and extent of
federal judicial power”
COURSE PRODUCT #2
CASE CHART
must be deemed to fall within
this ambit of congressional
power, so far as it authorizes
relief which is consonant with
the exercise of the judicial
function in the determination of
controversies to which under the
Constitution the judicial power
extends.”
1937
Supreme Court of the United
States
Whether the declaratory judgement apply.
MANDATORY
“The complaint presented a
controversy to which the
judicial power extends and
that authority to hear and
determine it has been
conferred upon the District
Court by the Declaratory
Judgment Act. The decree is
reversed and the cause is
remanded for further
proceedings in conformity with
this opinion.”
settle the legal relations in
dispute and afford relief
from uncertainty or
insecurity, in the usual
circumstance the
declaratory judgment is not
subject to dismissal.”
“The exercise of discretion
must be supported by a
sound basis for refusing to
adjudicate an actual
controversy”
2007
United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal
Circuit
PERSUASIVE
“We conclude that the
dismissal was improperly
granted. The dismissal is
vacated, and the case is
remanded for further
proceedings consistent with
this opinion.”
in each case is whether
the facts alleged, under
all the circumstances,
show that there is a
substantial controversy,
between parties having
adverse legal interests,
of sufficient immediacy
and reality to warrant
the issuance of a
declaratory judgment.
2007
Supreme Court of the
United States
MANDATORY
Dismissal of the
declaratory – judgement
claims on discretionary
grounds.
The Court of appeals
erred in affirming the
dismissal of this action
for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction.
The judgment of the
Court of Appeals is
reversed, and the cause
is remanded for
proceedings consistent
with this opinion.
 COURSE PRODUCT #2
CASE CHART

Cases:
 Samsung Electronics Co. v. On Semiconductor Corp: https://cite.case.law/f-supp-2d/541/645/
 Medimmune, Inc. v. Gentech, Inc: https://cite.case.law/us/549/118/
 SanDisk Corp. v. STMicroelectronics, INC: https://cite.case.law/f3d/480/1372/#p1380
 EMC Corp. v. Norand Corp: https://cite.case.law/f3d/89/807/#p810
 Aetna Life Insurance v. Haworth: https://cite.case.law/us/300/227/#p239
GRADE: 4.7/5
Daniel,

This looks very thorough. The chart is well organized and clear.
I am wondering that there was a change in the test used by the courts, which means that cases that older cases using the previous Rule might not
applicable here, or would have to somehow reflect in the analysis and the chart that there was a change.

The goal here is to prepare you towards a memorandum, a motion, or an oral hearing. You seem well prepared.