§Why CasetextPricing

Patent Group, LLC v. Accentra, Inc.

RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION to Dismiss

14 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 260,142 times   281 Legal Analyses
    Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

  2. 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

  3. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A.

    534 U.S. 506 (2002)   Cited 17,065 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding with regard to a 67-year-old plaintiff and a 59-year-old comparator that " difference of eight years between the age of the person discharged and his replacement . . . is not insignificant"

  4. Cruz v. Beto

    405 U.S. 319 (1972)   Cited 5,557 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a Buddhist prisoner stated a claim under the First and Fourteenth Amendments when he alleged that he was placed in solitary confinement for proselytizing, while inmates of other religions were encouraged to participate in religious programs

  5. Carroll v. Fort James Corp.

    470 F.3d 1171 (5th Cir. 2006)   Cited 710 times
    Holding that district courts should only dismiss claims sua sponte if the court provides notice of its "intention and an opportunity to respond"

  6. Retail Clerks v. Schermerhorn

    373 U.S. 746 (1963)   Cited 800 times
    Concluding that—under Section 14(b) and the rule announced in General Motors Corp .—states may ban "agency shop" agreements by which employees have an "obligation to pay initiation fees and regular dues, ....[w]hatever may be the status of less stringent union-security arrangements ...."

  7. 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"

  8. Pequignot v. Solo Cup Co.

    608 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 106 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendant did not falsely mark its products for purposes of deceiving the public

  9. Astec America, Inc. v. Power-One, Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:07-cv-464 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 11, 2008)   Cited 3 times
    Denying defendant's motion to dismiss and finding that "[t]he issues of whether [defendant]'s practice of marking its products with the 'one or more' language constitutes false marking . . . turns on whether [plaintiff] can show that [defendant] implemented this marking practice with the intent to deceive the public."

  10. 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

  11. 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. . . ."

  12. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

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

  13. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 22,753 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

  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