§Why CasetextPricing

Boehm et al v. Future Tech Today, Inc. et al

Reply of AAA Production to Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim 7 Oral Argument requested.

12 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. 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"

  4. K-Tech Telecomms., Inc. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.

    714 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 204 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that complaint survives Rule 12(b) challenge when it gives notice of what patentee accuses of being an infringing act with reasonable inferences that such acts are being done

  5. Desenberg v. Google, Inc.

    392 F. App'x 868 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 19 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding district court's dismissal of plaintiff's direct infringement claim, on grounds that the claim required an allegation of joint infringement that plaintiff had not made, where the district court was presented with evidence that plaintiff had previously amended the claim in a manner that explicitly required the conduct of a joint infringer in order for direct infringement to occur

  6. Bender v. Motorola, Inc.

    Case No: C 09-1245 SBA (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2010)   Cited 8 times
    Finding that a complaint alleging that the Defendant "'performed acts . . . that infringe and induce others to infringe'. . . [was a] conclusory, fact-barren allegation fail[ed] to state a claim for inducement to infringe under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)"

  7. Deerpoint Group, Inc. v. Acqua Concepts, Inc.

    Case No. 1:14 -cv-01503-SAB (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2014)

    Case No. 1:14 -cv-01503-SAB 12-16-2014 DEERPOINT GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, v. ACQUA CONCEPTS, INC., et al., Defendants. ORDER GRANTING DEERPOINT GROUP, INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS ACQUA CONCEPTS, INC.'S COUNTERCLAIM AND VACATING DECEMBER 17, 2014 HEARING (ECF Nos. 14, 15, 16, 25, 26) FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE Currently before the Court is Deerpoint Group, Inc.'s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Court, having reviewed the record, finds this matter suitable for decision without oral argument

  8. Videx, Inc. v. Triteq Lock & Sec., LLC

    Civ. No. 6:11-cv-6384-AA (D. Or. May. 8, 2014)

    Civ. No. 6:11-cv-6384-AA 05-08-2014 VIDEX, INC., an Oregon corporation, Plaintiff, v. TRITEQ LOCK AND SECURITY, LLC, ROYAL VENDORS, INC., CRANE MERCHANDISING SYSTEMS, INC., dba DIXIE-NARCO, INC., and SANDENVENDO AMERICA, INC., Defendants. Ann Aiken OPINION AND ORDER AIKEN, Chief Judge: Plaintiff alleges claims of direct and indirect infringement against defendants under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Defendants now move to dismiss plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim or to strike certain

  9. Ziptronix, Inc. v. OmniVision Techs. Inc.

    Case No: C 10-5525 SBA (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2011)   Cited 1 times

    Case No: C 10-5525 SBA 11-07-2011 ZIPTRONIX, INC., Plaintiff, v. OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants. SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS Docket 52 Plaintiff Ziptronix, Inc. ("Plaintiff") brought the instant patent infringement action against Defendants Omnivision Technologies, Inc. ("Omnivision"), Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. and TSMC North America Corp. pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. The parties are presently before the

  10. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 157,606 times   196 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  11. Section 285 - Attorney fees

    35 U.S.C. § 285   Cited 3,208 times   481 Legal Analyses
    Granting district courts discretion to award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in exceptional cases

  12. Section 299 - Joinder of parties

    35 U.S.C. § 299   Cited 142 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Limiting the joinder of accused infringers in patent cases