13 Cited authorities

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 265,336 times 364 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' "
Cross Med Prod v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek
424 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 347 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that there can be no direct infringement of a product claim where surgeons, and not the defendant, made the claimed apparatus in the operating room, and remanding to determine whether the surgeons directly infringed such that Medtronic could be held liable for indirect infringement
BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P.
498 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Cited 293 times 42 Legal Analyses
Holding that an actor is liable for infringement under § 271 if it acts through an agent or contracts with another to perform one or more steps of a claimed method
Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.
365 U.S. 336 (1961) Cited 365 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that replacement of essential element of invention is not an infringing reconstruction of entire invention
Muniauction v. Thomson Corp.
532 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Cited 246 times 62 Legal Analyses
Holding it obvious to “apply the use of the Internet to existing electronic processes at a time when doing so was commonplace.”
ACCO Brands, Inc. v. ABA Locks Mfr. Co.
501 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Cited 234 times
Holding that the patent owner must show actual infringement, rather than just the capability to infringe
Fromson v. Advance Offset Plate, Inc.
720 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Cited 148 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "evidence of the scope of a particular claim can be found on review of other claims"
Emtel, Inc. v. Lipidlabs, Inc.
583 F. Supp. 2d 811 (S.D. Tex. 2008) Cited 18 times 1 Legal Analyses
Noting Rowe Int'l Corp. v. Ecast, Inc. , 586 F.Supp.2d 924, 930–33 (N.D.Ill.2008) ; Glob. Patent Holdings, LLC v. Panthers BRHC LLC , 586 F.Supp.2d 1331, 1335 (S.D.Fla.2008) aff'd , 318 Fed.Appx. 908 (Fed.Cir.2009)
Imatec, Ltd. v. Apple Computer, Inc.
81 F. Supp. 2d 471 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) Cited 11 times
No. 98 Civ. 1058(JGK). January 17, 2000. Eliot S. Gerber, Wyatt, Gerber, Meller O'Rourke, LLP, New York City, for plaintiffs. Daniel Johnson, Jr., Fenwick West, LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for defendant. OPINION AND ORDER KOELTL, District Judge. The plaintiffs, Imatec, Ltd. ("Imatec") and Hanoch Shalit ("Dr.Shalit"), bring this action alleging that the defendant, Apple Computer, Inc. ("Apple"), has infringed a series of patents owned by Dr. Shalit and, for a period, exclusively licensed or assigned to Imatec
Zenith Electronics Corporation v. Exzec Inc.
876 F. Supp. 175 (N.D. Ill. 1995) Cited 8 times
Concluding licensee was necessary party to patent infringement action under Rule 19 because the license agreement "transfers all substantial ownership rights" to the licensee
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 344,399 times 920 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 19 - Required Joinder of Parties
Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 Cited 9,503 times 54 Legal Analyses
Holding a person must be joined if disposing the action in the person's absence may leave an existing party subject to a "substantial" risk of incurring inconsistent obligations

Desenberg v. Google, Inc.

13 Cited authorities

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' "

Holding that there can be no direct infringement of a product claim where surgeons, and not the defendant, made the claimed apparatus in the operating room, and remanding to determine whether the surgeons directly infringed such that Medtronic could be held liable for indirect infringement

Holding that an actor is liable for infringement under § 271 if it acts through an agent or contracts with another to perform one or more steps of a claimed method

Holding that replacement of essential element of invention is not an infringing reconstruction of entire invention

Holding it obvious to “apply the use of the Internet to existing electronic processes at a time when doing so was commonplace.”

Holding that the patent owner must show actual infringement, rather than just the capability to infringe

Holding that "evidence of the scope of a particular claim can be found on review of other claims"

Noting Rowe Int'l Corp. v. Ecast, Inc. , 586 F.Supp.2d 924, 930–33 (N.D.Ill.2008) ; Glob. Patent Holdings, LLC v. Panthers BRHC LLC , 586 F.Supp.2d 1331, 1335 (S.D.Fla.2008) aff'd , 318 Fed.Appx. 908 (Fed.Cir.2009)

Concluding licensee was necessary party to patent infringement action under Rule 19 because the license agreement "transfers all substantial ownership rights" to the licensee

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Holding a person must be joined if disposing the action in the person's absence may leave an existing party subject to a "substantial" risk of incurring inconsistent obligations