examined Cited as authority (rule) MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. (3×) Id., at 104, 105, 108, 147. [3] And the phrase "does not infringe any valid claim" (emphasis added) cannot be thought to be no more than a challenge to the patent's validity, since elsewhere the amended complaint states with unmistakable clarity that "the patent is ... not infringed by [petitioner's] Synagis ® product and that [petitioner] owes no payments under license agreements with [respondents]." Id., at 104. [4] As to the second point, petitioner assuredly did contend that it had no obligation under the license to pay royalties on an invalid patent.

discussed Cited "see" Davel Communications, Inc. v. Qwest Corp. The new rules requiring dial-around compensation changed this regime so as to assure some compensation to the company that provided the payphone See 47 U.S.C. § 276 (b)(1)(A); see generally Global Crossing Telecomm., Inc. v. FCC, 259 F.3d 740, 742, 747 (D.C.Cir.2001) (tracing background of the dial-around compensation regulations). 3 We note that the question whether the 1996 Act provides a private right of action to enforce payphone regulations such as the Waiver Order is pending before the United States Supreme Court See Metrophones Telecomms., Inc. v. Global Crossing Telecomms., Inc., 423 …

cited Cited "see" Davel Communications v. Qwest Corporation See Metrophones Telecomms., Inc. v. Global Crossing Telecomms., Inc., 423 F.3d 1056 , 1065-70 (9th Cir.2005), cert. granted - U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1329 , 164 L.Ed.2d 46 (2006).

cited Cited "see" Davel Communications, Inc. v. Qwest Corp. See Metrophones Telecomms., Inc. v. Global Crossing Telecomms., Inc., 423 F.3d 1056 , 1065-70 (9th Cir.2005), cert. granted - U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1329 , 164 L.Ed.2d 46 (Feb. 21, 2006).