§Why CasetextPricing

Patent Group, LLC v. Accentra, Inc.

MOTION to Dismiss

21 Cited authorities

  1. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 273,590 times   368 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

  2. Erickson v. Pardus

    551 U.S. 89 (2007)   Cited 63,493 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"

  3. Christopher v. Harbury

    536 U.S. 403 (2002)   Cited 5,184 times
    Holding Verdugo-Urquidez and Eisentrager foreclosed due process claim for actions taken against alien abroad

  4. In re Burlington Coat Factory

    114 F.3d 1410 (3d Cir. 1997)   Cited 7,881 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a court may consider a "document integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint" when deciding a motion to dismiss

  5. United States v. Bailey

    444 U.S. 394 (1980)   Cited 1,103 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that if a defendant fails to support one element of a defense, "the trial court and jury need not be burdened with testimony supporting other elements"

  6. Exergen Corporation v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

    575 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 692 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that allegation that "Exergen, its agents and/or attorneys . . . knew of the material information and deliberately withheld or misrepresented it" without naming "the specific individual associated with the filing or prosecution of the application" was not sufficiently particular to satisfy the "who" element of an inequitable conduct claim

  7. In re Suprema Specialties, Inc.

    438 F.3d 256 (3d Cir. 2006)   Cited 557 times
    Holding that Securities Act claims that allege negligence and are pleaded separately from Section 10(b) claims will not trigger the Rule 9(b) standard

  8. Shapiro v. UJB Financial Corp.

    964 F.2d 272 (3d Cir. 1992)   Cited 584 times
    Holding that "once all predicate § 10(b) claims are dismissed, there are no allegations upon which § 20 liability can be based."

  9. Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Co.

    590 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 132 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 292 required the court to impose a penalty for false marking on a per article basis

  10. Clontech Laboratories v. Invitrogen Corp.

    406 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 130 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a plaintiff must show that a defendant "did not have an honest good faith belief in marking its products"

  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 354,229 times   943 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 160,289 times   196 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  13. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 39,551 times   328 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity

  14. Section 292 - False marking

    35 U.S.C. § 292   Cited 566 times   61 Legal Analyses
    Providing cause of action and share of recovery against a person falsely marking patented articles