71 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 254,776 times   279 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 268,550 times   366 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. Ebay Inc. v. Mercexchange, L. L. C.

    547 U.S. 388 (2006)   Cited 3,820 times   130 Legal Analyses
    Holding that traditional four-factor test applies to injunctions against patent infringement
  4. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,522 times   180 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"
  5. Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp.

    486 U.S. 800 (1988)   Cited 3,140 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the appeal belonged before the regional circuit because the claims did not arise under patent law
  6. Holmes Grp., v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc.

    535 U.S. 826 (2002)   Cited 1,397 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "`[l]inguistic consistency'" required that the same "arising under" test be applied to the jurisdictional statute for patent claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1338, as is used for the general federal jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331
  7. Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n

    434 U.S. 412 (1978)   Cited 3,657 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for a defendant to recoup attorneys fees under § 706(k) of Title VII, a court must find that the plaintiff litigated his or her claim beyond the point where it became “frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless” or where plaintiff acted in bad faith
  8. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,727 times   164 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "because extrinsic evidence can help educate the court regarding the field of the invention and can help the court determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand claim terms to mean, it is permissible for the district court in its sound discretion to admit and use such evidence"
  9. State Oil Co. v. Khan

    522 U.S. 3 (1997)   Cited 689 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that court of appeals was correct to apply Supreme Court precedent despite its "infirmities, its increasingly wobbly, moth-eaten foundations" (alteration in original)
  10. Verizon Comm. v. Law Offices of Trinko

    540 U.S. 398 (2004)   Cited 512 times   56 Legal Analyses
    Holding even a monopolist has no duty to cooperate with rivals
  11. 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 348,046 times   927 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
  12. Rule 201 - Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts

    Fed. R. Evid. 201   Cited 28,497 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding "[n]ormally, in deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, courts must limit their inquiry to the facts stated in the complaint and the documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint. However, courts may also consider matters of which they may take judicial notice."
  13. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 6,061 times   1055 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"
  14. Section 2 - Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty

    15 U.S.C. § 2   Cited 4,394 times   30 Legal Analyses
    In § 2 cases under the Sherman Act, as in § 7 cases under the Clayton Act (Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 325) there may be submarkets that are separate economic entities.
  15. Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

    35 U.S.C. § 282   Cited 3,902 times   139 Legal Analyses
    Granting a presumption of validity to patents
  16. Section 45 - Unfair methods of competition unlawful; prevention by Commission

    15 U.S.C. § 45   Cited 3,864 times   565 Legal Analyses
    Providing court-ordered monetary penalties against anyone who engages in conduct previously identified as prohibited in a final cease and desist order, but only if the violator acted with "actual knowledge that such act or practice is unfair or deceptive"
  17. Section 355 - New drugs

    21 U.S.C. § 355   Cited 2,252 times   340 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to change the date on which an ANDA may be approved if "either party to the action failed to reasonably cooperate in expediting the action"
  18. Section 331 - Prohibited acts

    21 U.S.C. § 331   Cited 1,517 times   105 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the sale of adulterated foods
  19. Section 4 - Jurisdiction of courts; duty of United States attorneys; procedure

    15 U.S.C. § 4   Cited 423 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Granting jurisdiction to "prevent and restrain" violations of the Sherman Act to federal district courts
  20. Section 355a - Pediatric studies of drugs

    21 U.S.C. § 355a   Cited 68 times   12 Legal Analyses

    (a) Definitions As used in this section, the term "pediatric studies" or "studies" means at least one clinical investigation (that, at the Secretary's discretion, may include pharmacokinetic studies) in pediatric age groups (including neonates in appropriate cases) in which a drug is anticipated to be used, and, at the discretion of the Secretary, may include preclinical studies. (b) Market exclusivity for new drugs (1) In general Except as provided in paragraph (2), if, prior to approval of an application

  21. Section 314.53 - Submission of patent information

    21 C.F.R. § 314.53   Cited 91 times   53 Legal Analyses
    Referring to "those patents that claim the drug product," and those "patents that claim the drug substance"