Opinion ID: 210719
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: District Court's Discretion

Text: 35 Although the district court is given the discretion, in declaratory judgment actions, to dismiss the case, there are boundaries to that discretion. See Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 289, 115 S.Ct. 2137, 132 L.Ed.2d 214 (1995). When there is an actual controversy and a declaratory judgment would 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. Genentech v. Eli Lilly & Co., 998 F.2d 931, 937 (Fed. Cir.1993). Furthermore, the exercise of discretion must be supported by a sound basis for refusing to adjudicate an actual controversy. See Elecs. for Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle, 394 F.3d 1341, 1345 (Fed.Cir. 2005); Capo, Inc. v. Dioptics Med. Prod., Inc., 387 F.3d 1352, 1357 (Fed.Cir.2004). 36 In this case, the district court noted, without explanation in a footnote, that [a]s an alternative basis for its ruling, the Court concludes that even if it had subject matter jurisdiction over the instant claims, it would exercise its discretion and decline to decide them. SanDisk, slip op. at 17 n. 30. That decision, however, was made in the context of our reasonable apprehension precedent without the benefit of the Supreme Court's views in MedImmune. Given the change reflected in MedImmune and our holding in this case, we discern little basis for the district court's refusal to hear the case and expect that in the absence of additional facts, the case will be entertained on the merits on remand.