Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was granted. "[Plaintiff] alleges it has three new designs that it intends to offer for sale and has indicated to its customers that it will offer for sale. [Plaintiff's] facts give no indication of when it plans to manufacture or sell the new designs. . . . Under these facts, the Court cannot determine whether [plaintiff] is ready to infringe tomorrow or next year. These alleged facts, under all the circumstances, do not show that there is a 'substantial controversy . . . of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment' . . . [Moreover] [plaintiff] has given the Court no assurance that its designs will not change dependent on the Court’s claim construction rulings. This concerns the Court. . . . It would be unfair to subject [defendant] to a declaratory judgment action where [plaintiff] may completely redesign its products mid-litigation in response to an adverse claim construction ruling."
Mega Lift Systems, LLC v. MGM Well Services, Inc., 6-08-cv-004220
(TXED June 29, 2009, Memorandum Opinion & Order) (Davis, J.)