550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 273,590 times 368 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
Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in not allowing the plaintiff to amend its complaint because the plaintiff had already had two opportunities to amend their complaint
Holding that an "advice of counsel" defense to willful infringement does not waive the attorney-client privilege as to trial counsel partly because post-filing conduct is usually not relevant to a finding of willful infringement
Holding that pleading "the process for" using the accused product in an infringing way "has no other substantial non-infringing use" is not the same as pleading the accused product contains a component that can only infringe, and therefore fails to state a claim for contributory infringement
Holding that the record supported jury verdict of no induced infringement where it showed defendant contacted an Australian attorney and "obtained letters from U.S. patent counsel advising that [its product] did not infringe"