24 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 255,203 times   280 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 268,949 times   367 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 14,162 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. Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. Seb S. A.

    563 U.S. 754 (2011)   Cited 807 times   65 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a finding of deliberate ignorance requires the defendant to "take deliberate actions to avoid learning of [wrongdoing]."
  5. Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.

    136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016)   Cited 497 times   59 Legal Analyses
    Holding that section 284 " ‘commits the determination’ whether enhanced damages are appropriate ‘to the discretion of the district court’ "
  6. Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc.

    572 U.S. 915 (2014)   Cited 215 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"
  7. I4I Ltd. Partnership v. Microsoft Corp.

    598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 642 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
  8. 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."
  9. DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co.

    471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 517 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"
  10. 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"
  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 348,503 times   930 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
  12. Rule 4 - Summons

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 4   Cited 69,790 times   123 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
  13. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 6,067 times   1055 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"