Source: https://patentlaw.jmbm.com/2016/03/cisco-v-sprint-declaratory-jud.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 02:09:45+00:00

Document:
Plaintiff Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) filed two declaratory judgment actions against Sprint seeking to invalidate six Sprint patents and seeking a declaration of non-infringement of seven Sprint patents. Cisco is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business in San Jose, California. Sprint is a limited partnership organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Overland Park, Kansas.
As explained by the district court, the Declaratory Judgment Act requires an actual controversy between the parties before a federal court may exercise jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). A plaintiff bringing an action for declaratory judgment must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an actual controversy exists. See Shell Oil Co. v. Amoco Corp., 970 F.2d 885, 887 (Fed. Cir. 1992). An actual controversy exists where “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.” Medlmmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 127 (2007) (quoting Maryland Cas. Co. v. Pac. Coal & Oil Co., 312 U.S. 270, 273 (1941)). An “adverse legal interest” requires a dispute as to a legal right–“for example, an underlying legal cause of action that the declaratory defendant could have brought or threatened to bring.” Arris Grp., Inc. v. British Telecommunications PLC, 639 F.3d 1368, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2011). This is not a bright-line test. See, e.g., Maryland Cas., 312 U.S. at 273; Sony Elecs., Inc. v. Guardian Media Techs., Ltd., 497 F.3d 1271, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Supreme Court has acknowledged that this inquiry will necessarily be fact specific and must be made in consideration of all the relevant circumstances. See Medlmmune, 549 U.S. at 127.
Cisco also argued that its customers’ demands for indemnification satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of the Declaratory Judgment Act. The district court found that, if Cisco “had an obligation to indemnify their customers, [it] would have standing to bring suit.” Microsoft, 755 F.3d at 904 (emphasis added). However, the Microsoft Court specifically rejected the attempt in that case to broaden its precedent by granting standing based on customer requests without regard to the merits of such requests.
Accordingly, the district court granted the motion to dismiss.

References: § 2201
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.