20 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 255,123 times 280 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
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 268,865 times 367 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' "
Finisar v. Directv
523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Cited 416 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a competent opinion of counsel concluding either [non-infringement or invalidity] would provide a sufficient basis for [the defendant] to proceed without engaging in objectively reckless behavior with respect to the [asserted] patent"
Allen Engineering v. Bartell Industries
299 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Cited 496 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that claims that contradicted the specification were invalid as indefinite
McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp.
501 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Cited 411 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that a direct infringement claim made in accordance with Form 16 (now Form 18) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure meets the Twombly pleading standard
Aristocrat Tech v. Intern. Game
521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Cited 324 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that in cases involving means-plus-function claims where structure is "a computer, or microprocessor, programmed to carry out an algorithm," specification must disclose corresponding algorithm to be sufficiently definite
Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.
365 U.S. 336 (1961) Cited 365 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that replacement of essential element of invention is not an infringing reconstruction of entire invention
Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc.
675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 214 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that because Noah had made the same indefiniteness arguments during claim construction before the district court, waiver did not apply
Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A
868 F.2d 1251 (Fed. Cir. 1989) Cited 386 times
Holding that the phrase "[a]n optical waveguide" in the preamble of the claim language was meant to limit claim scope to "optical waveguides" rather than all optical fibers because the "specification [made it] clear that the inventors were working on the particular problem of an . . . optical communication system not on general improvements in conventional optical fibers"
Default Proof Credit Card v. Home Depot
412 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 230 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding that the point-of-sale assembly was not the corresponding structure for the dispensing means where the two were recited in different parts of the same claim
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 348,416 times 930 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 157,557 times 196 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Section 112 - Specification
35 U.S.C. § 112 Cited 7,288 times 1031 Legal Analyses
Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it
Section 271 - Infringement of patent
35 U.S.C. § 271 Cited 6,066 times 1055 Legal Analyses
Holding that testing is a "use"

Marshall Feature Recognition, LLC v. Wendy's International, Inc

20 Cited authorities

Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

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' "

Holding that "a competent opinion of counsel concluding either [non-infringement or invalidity] would provide a sufficient basis for [the defendant] to proceed without engaging in objectively reckless behavior with respect to the [asserted] patent"

Holding that claims that contradicted the specification were invalid as indefinite

Holding that a direct infringement claim made in accordance with Form 16 (now Form 18) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure meets the Twombly pleading standard

Holding that in cases involving means-plus-function claims where structure is "a computer, or microprocessor, programmed to carry out an algorithm," specification must disclose corresponding algorithm to be sufficiently definite

Holding that replacement of essential element of invention is not an infringing reconstruction of entire invention

Holding that because Noah had made the same indefiniteness arguments during claim construction before the district court, waiver did not apply

Finding that the point-of-sale assembly was not the corresponding structure for the dispensing means where the two were recited in different parts of the same claim

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

Holding that testing is a "use"