42 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 263,477 times 281 Legal Analyses
Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 276,716 times 369 Legal Analyses
Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing
Walden v. Fiore
571 U.S. 277 (2014) Cited 4,528 times 49 Legal Analyses
Holding that, for specific jurisdiction, "the relationship must arise out of contacts that the 'defendant [it]self' creates with the forum State" (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985))
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.
374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 2,785 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in the tort context, "[t]he `express aiming' analysis depends, to a significant degree, on the specific type of tort or other wrongful conduct at issue"
Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Intern. Interlink
284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) Cited 1,506 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding website-operator defendant's magazine advertisements supported the exercise of jurisdiction where defendant also ran local radio advertisements
Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy
453 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2006) Cited 1,067 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a district court "need not permit even limited discovery" where a "plaintiff's claim of personal jurisdiction appears to be both attenuated and based on bare allegations in the face of specific denials made by the defendants"
Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.
952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997) Cited 1,323 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that a significant amount of the alleged infringement and dilution, as well as the resulting injury, occurred in Pennsylvania
Panavision International, L.P. v. Toeppen
141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998) Cited 1,171 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that personal jurisdiction existed where “[t]he brunt of the harm ... was felt in California,” and the defendant “knew Panavision would likely suffer harm there because, although at all relevant times Panavision was a Delaware limited partnership, its principal place of business was in California”
Data Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech. Assoc., Inc.
557 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1977) Cited 1,728 times
Holding that a court "may not assume the truth of allegations in a pleading which are contradicted by affidavit"
Holland Am. Line Inc. v. Wärtsilä N. Am., Inc.
485 F.3d 450 (9th Cir. 2007) Cited 509 times
Holding that forum selection clauses applied to non-signatories because larger contract involved transactions that included non-signatories
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 357,835 times 950 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 162,084 times 197 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Section 271 - Infringement of patent
35 U.S.C. § 271 Cited 6,140 times 1083 Legal Analyses
Holding that testing is a "use"
Section 2072 - Rules of procedure and evidence; power to prescribe
28 U.S.C. § 2072 Cited 1,836 times 37 Legal Analyses
Granting the Supreme Court, not the parties, authority to "prescribe general rules of practice and procedure" for federal district court cases
Rule 84 - Abrogated (Apr. 29, 2015, eff. Dec. 1, 2015).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 84 Cited 1,037 times 7 Legal Analyses
Explaining that the appended forms "are sufficient under the rules and are intended to indicate the simplicity and brevity of statement which the rules contemplate"
Section 154 - Contents and term of patent; provisional rights
35 U.S.C. § 154 Cited 774 times 270 Legal Analyses
Granting twenty years for utility patents

Aker Biomarine Antarcitic, as v. Luhua Biomarine (Shandong) Co., Ltd. et al

42 Cited authorities

Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing

Holding that, for specific jurisdiction, "the relationship must arise out of contacts that the 'defendant [it]self' creates with the forum State" (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985))

Holding that, in the tort context, "[t]he `express aiming' analysis depends, to a significant degree, on the specific type of tort or other wrongful conduct at issue"

Holding website-operator defendant's magazine advertisements supported the exercise of jurisdiction where defendant also ran local radio advertisements

Holding that a district court "need not permit even limited discovery" where a "plaintiff's claim of personal jurisdiction appears to be both attenuated and based on bare allegations in the face of specific denials made by the defendants"

Holding that a significant amount of the alleged infringement and dilution, as well as the resulting injury, occurred in Pennsylvania

Holding that a court "may not assume the truth of allegations in a pleading which are contradicted by affidavit"

Holding that forum selection clauses applied to non-signatories because larger contract involved transactions that included non-signatories

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Holding that testing is a "use"

Granting the Supreme Court, not the parties, authority to "prescribe general rules of practice and procedure" for federal district court cases

Explaining that the appended forms "are sufficient under the rules and are intended to indicate the simplicity and brevity of statement which the rules contemplate"

Granting twenty years for utility patents