Prasco, LLC v. Medicis Pharm. Corp. - 537 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

Rule:

For there to be a case or controversy under U.S. Const. art. III, the dispute must be definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests, real and substantial, and admit of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.

Facts:

Plaintiff-appellant Prasco, LLC brought a declaratory judgment action against defendants-appellees Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. and Imaginative Research Associates, Inc. (collectively "the defendants"), seeking a declaration that its generic benzoyl peroxide cleansing product did not infringe various patents owned by the defendants. The district court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that plaintiff’s complaint failed to establish a case or controversy under Article III of the Constitution. Plaintiff appealed. 

Issue:

Did the plaintiff’s complaint fail to establish a case or controversy under Article III of the Constitution, thereby warranting the dismissal of the action for lack of jurisdiction? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding that there was no case or controversy because there was no definite and concrete dispute that touched the legal relations of these parties. The court concluded that under all the circumstances there was not a case or controversy within the meaning of U.S. Const. art. III or the Declaratory Judgment Act. The defendant had not taken a concrete position adverse to the plaintiff’s. Had the district court reached the merits of this case, it would merely have provided an advisory opinion.