Opinion ID: 209874
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: District Court Discretion

Text: Even assuming that the immediacy and reality prerequisites for declaratory judgment relief have been met, the district court's exercise of its declaratory judgment authority is discretionary. SanDisk, 480 F.3d at 1383; Cardinal Chem. Co. v. Morton, Int'l, Inc., 508 U.S. 83, 95 n. 17, 113 S.Ct. 1967, 124 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993). When there is no actual controversy, the court has no discretion to decide the case. When there is an actual controversy and thus jurisdiction, the exercise of that jurisdiction is discretionary. Spectronics Corp. v. H.B. Fuller Co., 940 F.2d 631, 634 (Fed.Cir.1991). In deciding whether to entertain a declaratory judgment request, a court must determine whether resolving the case serves the objectives for which the Declaratory Judgment Act was created. Capo, Inc. v. Dioptics Med. Prods., Inc., 387 F.3d 1352, 1355 (Fed.Cir.2004); EMC Corp. v. Norand Corp., 89 F.3d 807, 813-14 (Fed.Cir.1996). A plaintiff need not bet the farm, or ... risk treble damages ... before seeking a declaration of its actively contested legal rights. MedImmune, 127 S.Ct. at 775. Absent a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, TubeMaster will be forced to bet the farm by making the  in terrorem choice, see Arrowhead, 846 F.2d at 735, between a growing potential liability to Cat Tech and abandoning its catalyst loading activities. Because this is precisely the type of `dilemma that it was the very purpose of the Declaratory Judgment Act to ameliorate,' MedImmune, 127 S.Ct. at 773 (quoting Abbott Labs., 387 U.S. at 152, 87 S.Ct. 1507), the district court properly exercised its discretion to issue a declaratory judgment of non-infringement as to configurations 1, 2 and 4. [4] See SanDisk, 480 F.3d at 1381 (Article III jurisdiction may be met where the patentee takes a position that puts the declaratory judgment plaintiff in the position of either pursuing arguably illegal behavior or abandoning that which he claims a right to do.); Goodyear, 824 F.2d at 956 (Declaratory judgment should be used to provide the allegedly infringing party relief from uncertainty and delay regarding its legal rights.); Wembley, Inc. v. Superba Cravats, Inc., 315 F.2d 87, 90 (2d Cir. 1963) ([I]t would be economically wasteful to require a plaintiff to embark on an actual program of manufacture, use or sale which may turn out to be [infringing].).