24 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 251,860 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
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 265,830 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' "
Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside
578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009) Cited 14,044 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"
Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. Seb S. A.
563 U.S. 754 (2011) Cited 803 times 65 Legal Analyses
Holding that a finding of deliberate ignorance requires the defendant to "take deliberate actions to avoid learning of [wrongdoing]."
Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.
136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016) Cited 492 times 59 Legal Analyses
Holding that section 284 " ‘commits the determination’ whether enhanced damages are appropriate ‘to the discretion of the district court’ "
Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc.
572 U.S. 915 (2014) Cited 210 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding that because a "method patent ... is not infringed unless all the steps are carried out," a competitor did not induce direct infringement of a method patent merely by "carr[ying] out some steps constituting a method patent and encourag[ing] others to carry out the remaining steps"
I4I Ltd. Partnership v. Microsoft Corp.
598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010) Cited 640 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a party's quarrel with the facts the damages expert used go to the weight, not admissibility, of the expert's opinion
Alloc, Inc. v. International Trade Com'n
342 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 668 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that when "all the figures and embodiments disclosed in the asserted patents imply" a certain requirement and the patents "do not show or suggest any systems" without the requirement, then the "specification read as a whole leads to the inescapable conclusion that the claimed invention must include [the requirement] in every embodiment."
DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co.
471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006) Cited 516 times 27 Legal Analyses
Holding that the record supported jury verdict of no induced infringement where it showed defendant contacted an Australian attorney and "obtained letters from U.S. patent counsel advising that [its product] did not infringe"
Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.
377 U.S. 476 (1964) Cited 411 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) "require a showing that the alleged contributory infringer knew that the combination for which his component was especially designed was both patented and infringing"
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 344,948 times 920 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 4 - Summons
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Cited 68,659 times 121 Legal Analyses
Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time
Section 271 - Infringement of patent
35 U.S.C. § 271 Cited 6,032 times 1047 Legal Analyses
Holding that testing is a "use"

Aker Biomarine Antarctic as v. Olympic Holding as et al

24 Cited authorities

Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

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' "

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"

Holding that a finding of deliberate ignorance requires the defendant to "take deliberate actions to avoid learning of [wrongdoing]."

Holding that section 284 " ‘commits the determination’ whether enhanced damages are appropriate ‘to the discretion of the district court’ "

Holding that because a "method patent ... is not infringed unless all the steps are carried out," a competitor did not induce direct infringement of a method patent merely by "carr[ying] out some steps constituting a method patent and encourag[ing] others to carry out the remaining steps"

Holding that a party's quarrel with the facts the damages expert used go to the weight, not admissibility, of the expert's opinion

Holding that the record supported jury verdict of no induced infringement where it showed defendant contacted an Australian attorney and "obtained letters from U.S. patent counsel advising that [its product] did not infringe"

Holding that contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) "require a showing that the alleged contributory infringer knew that the combination for which his component was especially designed was both patented and infringing"

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

Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time

Holding that testing is a "use"