§Why CasetextPricing

InNova v. 3Com Corporation et al

MOTION to Dismiss Innova's Claims of Indirect Infringement

12 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 251,282 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 265,266 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. Lucent Technologies v. Gateway

    580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 740 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "we see little evidentiary basis under Georgia-Pacific" for the damages award

  4. 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"

  5. Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic Holding

    581 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 293 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding no contributory infringement as a matter of law because "the accused devices are indisputably capable of non-infringing use" and the patent owner could not show the use was insubstantial

  6. Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. U.S. Philips

    363 F.3d 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 313 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an expert's unsupported and conclusory assertions are insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact

  7. U.S. v. Employing Plasterers Assn

    347 U.S. 186 (1954)   Cited 185 times
    Holding that dismissal of case for failure to succinctly set forth evidential facts is rarely warranted where the plaintiff sets forth requirements for recovery under claimed cause of action

  8. Mallinckrodt Inc. v. E-Z-Em Inc.

    670 F. Supp. 2d 349 (D. Del. 2009)   Cited 81 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding the plaintiffs' contention that knowledge can be established by the filing of a complaint unpersuasive

  9. PA Advisors, LLC v. Google, Inc.

    706 F. Supp. 2d 739 (E.D. Tex. 2010)   Cited 4 times
    Granting defendants' motion for summary judgment on grounds that claim required joint infringement, with regard to claim step that required the "providing, by the user to the local computer system, search request data," in significant part because the claim made it explicit that the "providing" step must be performed "by the user"

  10. 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 344,310 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

  11. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 155,392 times   193 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  12. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 6,026 times   1043 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"