§Why CasetextPricing

Lawrence B. Lockwood et al v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP et al

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Dismiss Case 28

81 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 252,709 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. H. J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.

    492 U.S. 229 (1989)   Cited 3,622 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the continuity prong can be met by showing that related predicate offenses continued over a substantial period of time or posed a threat of continuing activity

  3. Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr

    518 U.S. 470 (1996)   Cited 2,417 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the presence of a state-law damages remedy for violations of FDA requirements does not impose an additional requirement upon medical device manufacturers but "merely provides another reason for manufacturers to comply with . . . federal law"

  4. Wyeth v. Levine

    555 U.S. 555 (2009)   Cited 1,432 times   101 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the FDA's drug labeling judgments pursuant to the FDCA did not obstacle preempt state law products liability claims

  5. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,519 times   169 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"

  6. Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.

    505 U.S. 504 (1992)   Cited 2,402 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an express warranty was not a "requirement ... imposed under State law" because the obligation was imposed by the warrantor

  7. Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee

    531 U.S. 341 (2001)   Cited 1,184 times   80 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal drug and medical device laws pre-empted a state tort-law claim based on failure to properly communicate with the FDA

  8. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,153 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  9. Fla. Avocado Growers v. Paul

    373 U.S. 132 (1963)   Cited 1,568 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding federal regulation concerning maturity of avocados did not preempt California regulation, where it was not impossible for growers to comply with both regulations

  10. Newcal Industries, Inc. v. IKON Office Solution

    513 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 850 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff who had already filed a fraud suit under the Sherman Act, Lanham Act, and RICO had standing to seek a declaration that the defendant's fraudulently procured contracts were invalid

  11. Section 1338 - Patents, plant variety protection, copyrights, mask works, designs, trademarks, and unfair competition

    28 U.S.C. § 1338   Cited 5,397 times   71 Legal Analyses
    Granting exclusive jurisdiction to the district courts "of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, . . . copyrights and trademarks"

  12. Section 302 - Request for reexamination

    35 U.S.C. § 302   Cited 180 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Noting that a request for a reexamination must set forth the pertinency and manner of applying the prior art to the patent at issue

  13. Section 1.56 - Duty to disclose information material to patentability

    37 C.F.R. § 1.56   Cited 848 times   60 Legal Analyses
    Adopting broad standard of materiality requiring that information not be cumulative

  14. Section 1.555 - Information material to patentability in ex parte reexamination and inter partes reexamination proceedings

    37 C.F.R. § 1.555   Cited 24 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Detailing the duty of disclosure