Inappropriate Dismissal Of Counterclaims Is Harmless Error Absent Prejudice In Having To Reassert Such Counterclaims In A Subsequent Action
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.05.07
The Federal Circuit in Walter Kidde Portable Equipment, Inc. v. Universal Security Instruments, Inc., (No. 06-1420, March 2, 2007) finds that the district erred as a matter of law when it dismissed the defendant’s counterclaims over objection from the defendant, while granting the plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal. The plaintiff had filed a motion for voluntary dismissal in order to re-file its complaint after curing a standing defect raised by the defendant. Part of this standing defect also related to what law should govern the document purporting to transfer ownership in the asserted patent to the plaintiff, thereby also raising a subject matter jurisdiction issue for the district court. Rather than addressing the subject matter jurisdiction issue, however, the district court not only granted the plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice, but went a step further by also dismissing the defendant’s counterclaims. The plaintiff re-filed its complaint on the same day as its motion for voluntary dismissal was granted.
The Federal Circuit finds that it was error for the district court to not first consider the subject matter jurisdiction issue since at least some of the counterclaims were unrelated to the plaintiff’s standing defect. That fact notwithstanding, the Federal Circuit further finds that this error was harmless since the defendant was free to reassert all counterclaims in the subsequently-filed action, and there was no evidence that the defendant was prejudiced by having to do so.
Insights
Client Alert | 7 min read | 08.17.26
Delayed Notification of Cyberattacks May Trigger HIPAA Breach Notification Rule
After identifying a ransomware attack in 2021, OSF Healthcare System waited until its forensic investigation had concluded before notifying the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) — and the affected individuals — of the breach. The 110-day delay (nearly double the 60-calendar-day notification deadline mandated by the HIPAA Breach Notification Rule) triggered an investigation from HHS’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). The health system’s investigation determined that protected health information (PHI) had been stolen.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.14.26
License to Hack? The White House Greenlights Private-Sector Offensive Cyber Operations
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.13.26
Supreme Court Confirms Contractual Loss of Bargain Without Repudiatory Breach
Client Alert | 7 min read | 08.12.26
Developments in Canadian Investment Treaty Practice: New FIPA Between Canada and UAE in Force
