19 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 263,477 times 281 Legal Analyses
Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint
Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp.
552 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2009) Cited 1,385 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that "for individual defendants' stock sales to raise an inference of scienter, plaintiffs must provide a 'meaningful trading history' for purposes of comparison to the stock sales within the class period," and that "[e]ven if the defendant's trading history is simply not available, for reasons beyond a plaintiff's control, the plaintiff is not excused from pleading the relevant history"
State Industries, Inc. v. A.O. Smith Corp.
751 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1985) Cited 190 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that where there is a challenge under the on sale bar of § 102(b), the defendant must show "that the newly added matter in the C-I-P application was not adequately disclosed in the earlier application in the manner required by the first paragraph of § 112"
Lyda v. CBS Corp.
838 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016) Cited 61 times 5 Legal Analyses
Affirming the dismissal of a complaint alleging joint infringement because the plaintiff had not "set forth any factual allegations in support of his assertion that [the defendant] directed or controlled the independent contractors"
Monec Holding AG v. Motorola Mobility, Inc.
897 F. Supp. 2d 225 (D. Del. 2012) Cited 69 times
Finding that the plaintiff's reliance on the defendants' participation in the same technologically-based industry as plaintiff, standing alone, was insufficient to establish defendants' actual knowledge of the patent
Xpoint Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
730 F. Supp. 2d 349 (D. Del. 2010) Cited 50 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that complaints claiming inducement of infringement must allege “the requisite knowledge and intent” on a motion to dismiss
Proxyconn Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
Case No. SACV 11-1681 DOC (ANx) (C.D. Cal. May. 16, 2012) Cited 27 times 1 Legal Analyses
Granting motion to dismiss indirect infringement claim because plaintiff alleged only that the defendants had knowledge of the patent "at least since the date of the suit"
Jenkins v. Logicmark, LLC
Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-751-HEH (E.D. Va. Jan. 25, 2017) Cited 12 times
Finding that "at a minimum," plaintiffs alleging willful infringement must plead facts "sufficient to support an inference 'plausible on its face' that the alleged conduct is of the egregious nature described in [Halo]"
LML Holdings, Inc. v. Pacific Coast Distrib. Inc.
Case No.: 11-CV-06173 YGR (N.D. Cal. May. 30, 2012) Cited 13 times
Noting that plaintiff there could not “cite a single case in which the fact that a suit was filed was grounds for a finding that an infringer's post-filing conduct ... [was] willful”
Martin v. MedTronic, Inc.
63 F. Supp. 3d 1050 (D. Ariz. 2014) Cited 9 times
Dismissing an amended complaint that was 146 pages long and had 675 numbered paragraphs because, even with dismissal of the majority of the claims, it would be "unfair to require defendants to answer the amended complaint"
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 357,835 times 950 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 162,084 times 197 Legal Analyses
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
35 U.S.C. § 271 Cited 6,140 times 1083 Legal Analyses
Holding that testing is a "use"

Continental Circuits Llc v. Intel Corporation et al

19 Cited authorities

Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

Holding that where there is a challenge under the on sale bar of § 102(b), the defendant must show "that the newly added matter in the C-I-P application was not adequately disclosed in the earlier application in the manner required by the first paragraph of § 112"

Affirming the dismissal of a complaint alleging joint infringement because the plaintiff had not "set forth any factual allegations in support of his assertion that [the defendant] directed or controlled the independent contractors"

Finding that the plaintiff's reliance on the defendants' participation in the same technologically-based industry as plaintiff, standing alone, was insufficient to establish defendants' actual knowledge of the patent

Holding that complaints claiming inducement of infringement must allege “the requisite knowledge and intent” on a motion to dismiss

Granting motion to dismiss indirect infringement claim because plaintiff alleged only that the defendants had knowledge of the patent "at least since the date of the suit"

Finding that "at a minimum," plaintiffs alleging willful infringement must plead facts "sufficient to support an inference 'plausible on its face' that the alleged conduct is of the egregious nature described in [Halo]"

Noting that plaintiff there could not “cite a single case in which the fact that a suit was filed was grounds for a finding that an infringer's post-filing conduct ... [was] willful”

Dismissing an amended complaint that was 146 pages long and had 675 numbered paragraphs because, even with dismissal of the majority of the claims, it would be "unfair to require defendants to answer the amended complaint"

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. . . ."

Holding that testing is a "use"