§Why CasetextPricing

Genentech, Inc. et al v. Amgen Inc.

REPLY BRIEF re MOTION to Dismiss Based upon Defendant's Unenforceability Counterclaims and to Strike Defendant's Eleventh Affirmative Defense

17 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 251,520 times   279 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 265,488 times   364 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "

  3. Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside

    578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009)   Cited 14,031 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion "in denying a motion for a class action determination which was untimely under the local rule"

  4. Young v. Lumenis

    492 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 214 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding the claim language "incision . . . near the edge of the ungual crest of the claw" of an animal is not indefinite even though "near" depends on the animal being considered

  5. Akzo N.V. v. U.S. International Trade Commission

    808 F.2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 144 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the former requirement to prove an injury to the domestic industry, which was “wed[ded] to the particular facts of each case” and was “precisely the type of question which Congress has committed to the expertise of the Commission,” was subject to substantial evidence review

  6. Rothman v, Target Corp.

    556 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 72 times
    Determining an attorney's "attempt to characterize . . . prior art in a manner favorable to the attorney's client" to be "nothing more than attorney argument"

  7. Genetics Institute, LLC v. Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics, Inc.

    655 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 55 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that ordinary motivation to optimize did not apply where disclosure was 68,000 protein variants including 2,332 amino acids

  8. Refac Intern., Ld. v. Lotus Development Corp.

    81 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 81 times
    Holding that presentation of a half-truth in an affidavit submitted to the PTO was inherently material

  9. Wyeth Holdings Corp. v. Sandoz, Inc.

    Civ. Action No. 09-955-LPS-CJB (D. Del. Feb. 3, 2012)   Cited 35 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that listing three specific individuals by name met the pleading standard for "who"

  10. Ring Plus v. Cingular Wireless Corp.

    614 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 17 times
    Upholding a district court's finding that a statement to the PTO was a misrepresentation “outside the bounds of permissible attorney argument” where patent applicants argued that the statement was “merely attorney argument”

  11. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 155,530 times   193 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  12. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 38,830 times   316 Legal Analyses
    Permitting "[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind [to] be alleged generally"

  13. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 6,027 times   1044 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"