AngioDynamics, Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., No. 12-4364 (2d Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseAngioDynamics filed suit against Biolitec, alleging that Biolitec failed to fulfill its contractual obligation to defend or indemnify AngioDynamics for litigation expenses and losses resulting from AngioDynamic's distribution of Biolitec's products. Non-party Biolitec FZ now moves to be substituted for or joined with Biolitec, under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(b), as a party-appellant in appealing the partial final judgment entered by the district court. The court held that substitution is not warranted in this case because Biolitec FZ has not demonstrated that it "needs to be substituted" within the meaning of Rule 43(b) and, therefore, the court denied the motion and dismissed the appeal. The court approved AngioDynamic's stipulation to withdraw the appeal.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.