Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A.

Holding with regard to a 67-year-old plaintiff and a 59-year-old comparator that " difference of eight years between the age of the person discharged and his replacement . . . is not insignificant"

Conley v. Gibson

Holding that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief"

Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit

Holding that there is no heightened pleading requirement in § 1983 suits against municipalities

Lowrey v. Texas a M University System

Holding that “title IX affords a private right of action for retaliation against the employees of federally funded educational institutions.”

U.S. ex rel Riley v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hosp

Holding relator’s complaint "sufficiently allege[d] that statements were known to be false, rather than just erroneous, because she assert[ed] that Defendants ordered the services knowing they were unnecessary"

McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp.

Holding that a direct infringement claim made in accordance with Form 16 (now Form 18) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure meets the Twombly pleading standard

Copeland v. Wasserstein, Perella Co., Inc.

Holding that allegation "not alleged in the complaint and . . . first raised on appeal" was "not an argument that we will not entertain"

Taltwell, LLC v. Zonet USA Corp.

Concluding that a non-resident corporate defendant party has purposefully directed its activities at the forum state, "if it enters into a business arrangement with a resident of the forum state whereby the [non-resident defendant] delivers goods or services to forum state and receives payments therefrom"

CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Goodmail Systems, Inc.

In CBT Flint, after acknowledging that the Eleventh Circuit had not decided whether Twombly has altered pleading standards in the patent context, the court found that though Form 18 "only provides a model for pleading direct infringement, there is no principled reason, at least not one advanced by the Defendant, for requiring more factual detail when the claim is one for contributory infringement."

Schwendimann v. Arkwright, Inc.

Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

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

Holding that testing is a "use"

Rule 84 - Abrogated (Apr. 29, 2015, eff. Dec. 1, 2015).

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"