Holding that, under Indiana state law, "allegations of increased risk of future identity theft . . . [are not] a harm that the law is prepared to remedy"
Holding that conversion, rather than incorporation, was appropriate to consider videos to assess fair-use defense and rejecting argument that incorporation-by-reference doctrine should be expended to "encourage courts to consider affirmative defenses on 12(b) motions and thereby reduce the threat of nuisance suits"
Holding that a prior-art reference anticipated claims 1-4 and 7, but not claims 8, 9, and 13, because the latter set of claims contained one fewer limitation
Holding that, absent evidence that the police were under a duty to follow a state's attorney's orders concerning the length of a plaintiff's detention, the plaintiff had inappropriately named the prosecutor as a defendant under § 1983
Holding that a licensing agreement conferred standing even though the license agreement included the wrong patent number because "substantial patent rights were transferred"
Holding that patent owner retained the ability to sue even where the exclusive licensee had a limited "right ... to grant sublicenses," "the absolute right to decide whether or not to initiate litigation against [an] accused infringer," and the right to "complete control" over such litigation, but where the patent owner retained the right to litigate in the event the licensee chose not to exercise its right