24 Cited authorities

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 280,676 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
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
550 U.S. 398 (2007) Cited 1,557 times 185 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"
Limestone v. Village
520 F.3d 797 (7th Cir. 2008) Cited 664 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the continuing violation doctrine simply “allow suit to be delayed until a series of wrongful acts blossoms into an injury on which suit can be brought”
SRI International v. Matsushita Electric Corp.
775 F.2d 1107 (Fed. Cir. 1985) Cited 986 times
Holding district court erroneously relied on specification in reading limitations from other claims into the disputed claims
Amazon.com v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc.
239 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001) Cited 538 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that secondary considerations based on "copying Amazon's ‘1-Click®’ feature is legally irrelevant unless the ‘1-Click®’ feature is shown to be an embodiment of the claims"
McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp.
501 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Cited 414 times 12 Legal Analyses
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
Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.
713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Cited 483 times 12 Legal Analyses
Finding evidence of nonobviousness in the "[r]ecognition and acceptance of patent by competitors who take licenses under it"
Minch v. City of Chicago
486 F.3d 294 (7th Cir. 2007) Cited 207 times
Holding that although the complaint did not refer to the parties' collective bargaining agreement, the district court was entitled to consider it because its authenticity was not disputed and the plaintiffs' claim rested on its terms
Ormco Corp. v. Align Technology, Inc.
463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006) Cited 205 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that evidence that success was due to prior art features rebutted the presumption
Wilson Sporting v. Hillerich Bradsby
442 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2006) Cited 145 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the claim term "gap" had different meanings in different claims based on those claims' different geometrical contexts
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 164,394 times 197 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Rule 11 - Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 Cited 37,492 times 150 Legal Analyses
Holding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney
Rule 42 - Consolidation; Separate Trials
Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 Cited 9,683 times 24 Legal Analyses
Granting court's authority to consolidate related cases or "issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay."

Edge Capture L.L.C. et al v. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. et al

24 Cited authorities

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

Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"

Holding that the continuing violation doctrine simply “allow suit to be delayed until a series of wrongful acts blossoms into an injury on which suit can be brought”

Holding district court erroneously relied on specification in reading limitations from other claims into the disputed claims

Holding that secondary considerations based on "copying Amazon's ‘1-Click®’ feature is legally irrelevant unless the ‘1-Click®’ feature is shown to be an embodiment of the claims"

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

Finding evidence of nonobviousness in the "[r]ecognition and acceptance of patent by competitors who take licenses under it"

Holding that although the complaint did not refer to the parties' collective bargaining agreement, the district court was entitled to consider it because its authenticity was not disputed and the plaintiffs' claim rested on its terms

Holding that evidence that success was due to prior art features rebutted the presumption

Holding that the claim term "gap" had different meanings in different claims based on those claims' different geometrical contexts

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Holding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney

Granting court's authority to consolidate related cases or "issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay."