§Why CasetextPricing

Mankes v. Fandango, LLC, et al

Memorandum in Support regarding 14 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

19 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. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 266,625 times   365 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. 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]."

  4. Mylan Laboratories, Inc. v. Matkari

    7 F.3d 1130 (4th Cir. 1993)   Cited 4,021 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the plaintiff's "claims that the defendants falsely represented that their drugs had been ‘properly approved by the FDA’ must fail"

  5. Lucent Technologies v. Gateway

    580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 741 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "we see little evidentiary basis under Georgia-Pacific" for the damages award

  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 651 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. Cross Med Prod v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek

    424 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 347 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there can be no direct infringement of a product claim where surgeons, and not the defendant, made the claimed apparatus in the operating room, and remanding to determine whether the surgeons directly infringed such that Medtronic could be held liable for indirect infringement

  9. BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P.

    498 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 293 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an actor is liable for infringement under § 271 if it acts through an agent or contracts with another to perform one or more steps of a claimed method

  10. Muniauction v. Thomson Corp.

    532 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 246 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Holding it obvious to “apply the use of the Internet to existing electronic processes at a time when doing so was commonplace.”

  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 345,885 times   922 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 156,205 times   193 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  13. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 6,040 times   1050 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"