§Why CasetextPricing

Front Row Technologies, LLC v. Major League Baseball Properties, Inc., et al

MOTION to Dismiss Front Row's Third Amended Complaint

22 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 251,689 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 265,662 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' "

  3. Papasan v. Allain

    478 U.S. 265 (1986)   Cited 16,637 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Ex parte Young would not support a suit against a state for ongoing liability for an alleged past breach of trust, since "continuing payment of the income from the lost corpus is essentially equivalent in economic terms to a one-time restoration of the lost corpus itself"

  4. Conley v. Gibson

    355 U.S. 41 (1957)   Cited 58,446 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief"

  5. Mayer v. Mylod

    988 F.2d 635 (6th Cir. 1993)   Cited 1,360 times
    Holding that opinions are actionable under § 10(b) when “the speaker does not believe the opinion and the opinion is not factually well-grounded”

  6. Bixler v. Foster

    596 F.3d 751 (10th Cir. 2010)   Cited 510 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding "[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face"

  7. DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co.

    471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 516 times   27 Legal Analyses
    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"

  8. Joy Technologies, Inc. v. Flakt, Inc.

    6 F.3d 770 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 314 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that noninfringing acts may not be enjoined

  9. Hackford v. Babbitt

    14 F.3d 1457 (10th Cir. 1994)   Cited 206 times
    Holding that prudential limitations bar a plaintiff from claiming an injury to an indivisible tribal asset

  10. Amana Refrigeration, Inc. v. Quadlux, Inc.

    172 F.3d 852 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 154 times
    Holding that fear over suit over "new products 'in the pipeline,' but not advertised, manufactured, marketed, or sold before the filing date" failed to demonstrate the continued existence of an actual case or controversy

  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 344,767 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

  12. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 155,637 times   193 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  13. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,265 times   1021 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

  14. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 6,030 times   1045 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"