74 Cited authorities

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 279,746 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
Erickson v. Pardus
551 U.S. 89 (2007) Cited 65,199 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a complaint must "give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests"
Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo
544 U.S. 336 (2005) Cited 3,630 times 67 Legal Analyses
Holding that the securities statutes have a private of action “not to provide investors with broad insurance against market losses, but to protect them against those economic losses that misrepresentations actually cause”
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) Cited 24,885 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his complaint if it appears at all possible that the plaintiff can correct the deficiencies in the complaint
Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA
317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 4,355 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Rule 9(b) pleading standards apply to California CLRA, FAL, and UCL claims because, though fraud is not an essential element of those statutes, a plaintiff alleges a fraudulent course of conduct as the basis of those claims
Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.
508 U.S. 49 (1993) Cited 1,159 times 42 Legal Analyses
Holding litigants immune from an antitrust claim under Noerr-Pennington immunity
Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.
429 U.S. 477 (1977) Cited 2,095 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that mere economic loss does not amount to an antitrust injury under the antitrust laws
United States v. Grinnell Corp.
384 U.S. 563 (1966) Cited 2,693 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding a series of three acquisitions "eliminated any possibility of an outbreak of competition" and thereby "perfected the monopoly power to exclude competitors and fix prices."
Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co.
495 U.S. 328 (1990) Cited 855 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that an antitrust injury is an injury that is "attributable to an anti-competitive aspect of the practice under scrutiny"
Brown Shoe Co. v. United States
370 U.S. 294 (1962) Cited 1,849 times 34 Legal Analyses
Holding judgment final and appealable where district court passed on every prayer for relief in the complaint and ordered full divestiture of stock, although court had not yet approved a divestiture plan
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 361,353 times 960 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 163,831 times 197 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters
Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 Cited 40,114 times 335 Legal Analyses
Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity
Section 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden
15 U.S.C. § 1125 Cited 15,763 times 327 Legal Analyses
Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"
Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,135 times 481 Legal Analyses
Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."
Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty
35 U.S.C. § 102 Cited 6,007 times 1007 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"
Section 2 - Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty
15 U.S.C. § 2 Cited 4,469 times 31 Legal Analyses
In § 2 cases under the Sherman Act, as in § 7 cases under the Clayton Act (Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 325) there may be submarkets that are separate economic entities.

Allergan, Inc v. Photomedex, Inc, et al

74 Cited authorities

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 a complaint must "give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests"

Holding that the securities statutes have a private of action “not to provide investors with broad insurance against market losses, but to protect them against those economic losses that misrepresentations actually cause”

Holding that a pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his complaint if it appears at all possible that the plaintiff can correct the deficiencies in the complaint

Holding that the Rule 9(b) pleading standards apply to California CLRA, FAL, and UCL claims because, though fraud is not an essential element of those statutes, a plaintiff alleges a fraudulent course of conduct as the basis of those claims

Holding litigants immune from an antitrust claim under Noerr-Pennington immunity

Holding that mere economic loss does not amount to an antitrust injury under the antitrust laws

Holding a series of three acquisitions "eliminated any possibility of an outbreak of competition" and thereby "perfected the monopoly power to exclude competitors and fix prices."

Holding that an antitrust injury is an injury that is "attributable to an anti-competitive aspect of the practice under scrutiny"

Holding judgment final and appealable where district court passed on every prayer for relief in the complaint and ordered full divestiture of stock, although court had not yet approved a divestiture plan

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. . . ."

Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity

Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"

Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

In § 2 cases under the Sherman Act, as in § 7 cases under the Clayton Act (Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 325) there may be submarkets that are separate economic entities.