Insmed Inc (INSM)

[parentsgratae]

Yes I have read the pertinent parts and copied them to a word file - skipped over the usual case citations and background data which I had knowledge of; but the parts regarding jurisdiction and the Lanham Act, concentrated on those; and I know from my federal procedure instruction that if a federal question is present i.e. the Lanham Act, the the Court has jurisdiction to decide all related state claims; TRCA's strategy was to litigate the state claims in its own home court by gerri-rigging the state claims to an alleged violation of the Federal Law. It did not work. The Court held that CA had no personal jurisdiction over INSM and there was no showing of any violation of the Lanham Act; so I was really taken aback by "donotknowit"'s response. One part of the opinion I was puzzled by; the Court noted as I recall, although TRCA corporate headquarters is in California, TRCA is not a CA corporation; now I was stunned by that, not having read the pleadings. True for Motorola in Texas - all the headquarters are here, but Motorola is incorporated in another state. Genius concept because in any litigation with small players in Texas, Motorola can remove a state case to Federal Court based on diversity and defeat the Texas opponent; I know this by experience!! Federal Court litigation is far more expensive. That alone can defeat the little guy. Here with TRCA, the fact that TRCA was not a CA corporation really worked against TRCA in the final ruling; just my view.