§Why CasetextPricing

Magnacross LLC v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless

MOTION to Dismiss All Claims in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12

15 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. Erickson v. Pardus

    551 U.S. 89 (2007)   Cited 61,355 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a complaint must "give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests"

  4. In re Katrina Canal

    495 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 2007)   Cited 4,527 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that flood exclusion provisions in State Farm policy covered damage caused by flooding due to breached levees

  5. Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. Seb S. A.

    563 U.S. 754 (2011)   Cited 803 times   65 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a finding of deliberate ignorance requires the defendant to "take deliberate actions to avoid learning of [wrongdoing]."

  6. 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 649 times   12 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

  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. MEMC Elec. Materials, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Materials Silicon Corp.

    420 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 268 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an indemnity provision alone cannot establish intent to induce infringement unless "the primary purpose" of the provision was to induce infringement

  9. K-Tech Telecomms., Inc. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.

    714 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 199 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that complaint survives Rule 12(b) challenge when it gives notice of what patentee accuses of being an infringing act with reasonable inferences that such acts are being done

  10. Southern Christian Leadership Conference v. Supreme Court of Louisiana

    252 F.3d 781 (5th Cir. 2001)   Cited 259 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that state prohibition on unlicensed students practicing law in state courts did not regulate speech

  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. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

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