§Why CasetextPricing

Power Integrations, Inc. v. On Semiconductor Corporation et al

REPLY

13 Cited authorities

  1. R+L Carriers, Inc. v. Drivertech LLC (In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig.)

    681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 651 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that pleading "the process for" using the accused product in an infringing way "has no other substantial non-infringing use" is not the same as pleading the accused product contains a component that can only infringe, and therefore fails to state a claim for contributory infringement

  2. Lifetime Indus., Inc. v. Trim-Lok, Inc.

    869 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 150 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it was reasonable to infer specific intent from pleaded facts showing knowledge of the patent and knowledge of infringement

  3. Schwartz v. Apple Inc. (In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litig.)

    846 F.3d 313 (9th Cir. 2017)   Cited 116 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that Article III standing is a jurisdictional requirement that may be raised "at any time"

  4. Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc.

    793 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 164 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding that although it is an important consideration, "not every failure to seek an opinion of competent counsel will mandate an ultimate finding of willfulness"

  5. Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int'l, Inc.

    843 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 66 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that while evidence the defendant maintained a technical support center in the U.S. "that provided support for the infringing controller chips to" U.S. customers "may not individually be sufficient to establish liability" it might when "as a whole" along with other evidence

  6. Windy City Innovations, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.

    193 F. Supp. 3d 1109 (N.D. Cal. 2016)   Cited 22 times
    Denying defendants motion to dismiss under Twombly and Iqbal because plaintiff's allegations of direct infringement are sufficient for notice pleading relying on the pre-December 1, 2015 Federal Circuit precedent

  7. Novitaz, Inc. v. InMarket Media, LLC

    Case No. 16-cv-06795-EJD (N.D. Cal. May. 26, 2017)   Cited 16 times
    Granting motion to dismiss where plaintiff "ma[de] no factual allegations regarding [defendant]'s knowledge or intent to infringe"

  8. Avago Techs. Gen. IP (Singapore) PTE Ltd. v. ASUSTek Comput., Inc.

    Case No. 15-cv-04525-EMC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2016)   Cited 16 times
    Recognizing abrogation of Rule 84 and the Form 18 pleading standard for direct infringement patent claims

  9. Roche Palo Alto LLC v. Apotex, Inc.

    526 F. Supp. 2d 985 (N.D. Cal. 2007)   Cited 25 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding validity is single issue

  10. Mir v. Kirchmeyer

    CASE NO. 12cv2340-GPC-DHB (S.D. Cal. May. 30, 2014)   Cited 6 times

    CASE NO. 12cv2340-GPC-DHB 05-30-2014 JEHAN ZEB MIR, Plaintiff, v. KIMBERLY KIRCHMEYER, et al., Defendants. GONZALO P. CURIEL ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT [Dkt. No. 50.] Presently before the Court is a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint filed by Defendants Kimberly Kirchmeyer, Linda Whitney, and Sharon Levine (collectively, "Defendants"). (Dkt. No. 50.) The Parties have fully briefed the motion. (Dkt

  11. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 345,885 times   922 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss