26 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 263,882 times 281 Legal Analyses
Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 277,112 times 369 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
Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. Seb S. A.
563 U.S. 754 (2011) Cited 830 times 66 Legal Analyses
Holding that a finding of deliberate ignorance requires the defendant to "take deliberate actions to avoid learning of [wrongdoing]."
Dougherty v. Town of N. Hempstead Bd. of Zoning
282 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2002) Cited 1,126 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that because "Dougherty [n]either sought, [n]or was denied, a variance," he "has not received a final decision under Williamson"
R+L Carriers, Inc. v. Drivertech LLC (In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig.)
681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 675 times 13 Legal Analyses
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
Iodice v. U.S.
289 F.3d 270 (4th Cir. 2002) Cited 926 times
Holding that the Hart court "refused to base its decision on [North Carolina's Dram Shop] statute" and instead "relied on the common law duty" to act as a reasonably prudent person
Kyocera Wireless v. I.T.C
545 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Cited 118 times 16 Legal Analyses
Finding public accessibility when the reference was contained in a book sold to the public
Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.
720 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2013) Cited 56 times 14 Legal Analyses
Upholding district court's refusal to limit the claim term “short-range communication protocols” to those listed in the patent
Backus v. Cox
Civil Action No.: 4:13-cv-00881-RBH (D.S.C. Oct. 18, 2013) Cited 22 times
Civil Action No.: 4:13-cv-00881-RBH 2013-10-18 Joseph Elijah Backus, III, Plaintiff, v. Dt. Russell Cox; The State of South Carolina, Florence County, Defendants. R. Bryan Harwell ORDER Plaintiff Joseph Elijah Backus, III, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action alleging that the above-captioned Defendants committed breach of trust, obtained documentation under false pretenses, obtained goods and services under false pretenses, breached a contract, and used illegal investigative practices
Beck v. City of Durham
129 F. Supp. 2d 844 (M.D.N.C. 2000) Cited 33 times
Holding that a plaintiff cannot create additional claims in his response to a defendant's motion to dismiss
Section 636 - Jurisdiction, powers, and temporary assignment
28 U.S.C. § 636 Cited 519,732 times 41 Legal Analyses
Holding that when a party fails to object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, our review of the district court's resulting decision is for plain error so long as the party "has been served with notice that [this consequence] will result from a failure to object"
Rule 72 - Magistrate Judges: Pretrial Order
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Cited 175,049 times 20 Legal Analyses
Granting a party fourteen days to object to a Magistrate Judge's non-dispositive order
Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 Cited 23,110 times 16 Legal Analyses
Providing for service via CM/ECF Systems
Section 271 - Infringement of patent
35 U.S.C. § 271 Cited 6,144 times 1082 Legal Analyses
Holding that testing is a "use"

Intellectual Ventures I, LLC et al v. Bank of America et al

26 Cited authorities

Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

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 a finding of deliberate ignorance requires the defendant to "take deliberate actions to avoid learning of [wrongdoing]."

Holding that because "Dougherty [n]either sought, [n]or was denied, a variance," he "has not received a final decision under Williamson"

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 Hart court "refused to base its decision on [North Carolina's Dram Shop] statute" and instead "relied on the common law duty" to act as a reasonably prudent person

Finding public accessibility when the reference was contained in a book sold to the public

Upholding district court's refusal to limit the claim term “short-range communication protocols” to those listed in the patent

Holding that a plaintiff cannot create additional claims in his response to a defendant's motion to dismiss

Holding that when a party fails to object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, our review of the district court's resulting decision is for plain error so long as the party "has been served with notice that [this consequence] will result from a failure to object"

Granting a party fourteen days to object to a Magistrate Judge's non-dispositive order

Providing for service via CM/ECF Systems

Holding that testing is a "use"