§Why CasetextPricing

Bluebonnet Telecommunications L.L.C. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al

MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Indirect Infringement and Willful Infringement Claims

10 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 269,029 times   281 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts are not required "to credit a complaint's conclusory statements without reference to its factual context"

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 281,939 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

  3. Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. Seb S. A.

    563 U.S. 754 (2011)   Cited 843 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a finding of deliberate ignorance requires the defendant to "take deliberate actions to avoid learning of [wrongdoing]."

  4. R+L Carriers, Inc. v. Drivertech LLC (In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig.)

    681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 682 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that pleading "the process for" using the accused product in an infringing way "has no other substantial non-infringing use" is not the same as pleading the accused product contains a component that can only infringe, and therefore fails to state a claim for contributory infringement

  5. In re Seagate Technology

    497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 804 times   86 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an "advice of counsel" defense to willful infringement does not waive the attorney-client privilege as to trial counsel partly because post-filing conduct is usually not relevant to a finding of willful infringement

  6. Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc.

    620 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 219 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the fact that a user "can turn off the infringing features" does not mean there are substantial noninfringing uses

  7. Inmotion Imagery Techs. v. Brain Damage Films

    CAUSE NO. 2:11-CV-414-JRG (E.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2012)   Cited 7 times

    CAUSE NO. 2:11-CV-414-JRG 08-10-2012 INMOTION IMAGERY TECHNOLOGIES Plaintiff, v. BRAIN DAMAGE FILMS, et al., Defendants. RODNEY GILSTRAP MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Before the Court is Defendant Galaxy Internet Group, LLC's ("Galaxy") Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Dkt. No. 8). After carefully considering the parties' written submissions, the Court GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART the Motion. II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On September 15, 2011, InMotion Imagery

  8. 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 363,942 times   963 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  9. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 165,126 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  10. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 6,210 times   1091 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"