Temporary lack of jurisdiction cured when affiliate was substituted for plaintiff
Affinion Loyalty Group, Inc. v. Maritz, Inc., C.A. 04-360-JJF, May 22, 2006.
Farnan, J. Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to a corporate acquisition which assigned rights to patents-in-suit to Affinion Patents, leaving Affinion Loyalty without standing. The court substituted Affinion Patents for Affinion Loyalty.
Affinion Loyalty had standing to sue when it filed the lawsuit, but lost it after Affinion Patents obtained the patent rights after a corporate acquisition. Defendant asked the court to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and Affinion Loyalty moved to add Affinion Patents. The court ruled that the temporary lack of jurisdiction could be cured by joining Affinion Patents. Affinion Loyalty lacked standing to remain as a co-plaintiff. A motion to sanction Affinion for late disclosure of the change was denied.
Farnan, J. Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to a corporate acquisition which assigned rights to patents-in-suit to Affinion Patents, leaving Affinion Loyalty without standing. The court substituted Affinion Patents for Affinion Loyalty.
Affinion Loyalty had standing to sue when it filed the lawsuit, but lost it after Affinion Patents obtained the patent rights after a corporate acquisition. Defendant asked the court to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and Affinion Loyalty moved to add Affinion Patents. The court ruled that the temporary lack of jurisdiction could be cured by joining Affinion Patents. Affinion Loyalty lacked standing to remain as a co-plaintiff. A motion to sanction Affinion for late disclosure of the change was denied.
