17 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. Conley v. Gibson

    355 U.S. 41 (1957)   Cited 58,952 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief"
  4. Airborne v. AT&T

    499 F.3d 663 (7th Cir. 2007)   Cited 852 times
    Finding that defendant suffered real prejudice by endless amendments and motion practice regarding the complaint
  5. 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
  6. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L

    437 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 172 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that non-inventor's notebook did not corroborate reduction to practice because the non-inventor "did not testify regarding the notebook or the genuineness of its contents" and the district court was therefore "clearly reliant on the inventor to help identify the author of specific entries made in [the non-inventor's] notebook"
  7. Slip Track Systems, Inc. v. Metal-Lite, Inc.

    304 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 71 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where "the parties . . . dispute only whether one limitation is part of the interfering subject matter, and determination of this issue is dependent upon issues of law alone, we will resolve this issue on appeal."
  8. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L

    353 F.3d 928 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 66 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, without any of the necessary factual determinations underlying an obviousness inquiry, the appellate court could not undertake any review in the first instance
  9. Advance Transformer Co. v. Levinson

    837 F.2d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 38 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that case is exceptional must be supported by clear and convincing evidence
  10. Albert v. Kevex Corp.

    729 F.2d 757 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 41 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the disclaimer of the allegedly interfering claims divested the district court of jurisdiction over the § 291 interfering patents action
  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 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 92,835 times   91 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint
  14. Section 291 - Derived patents

    35 U.S.C. § 291   Cited 77 times   13 Legal Analyses

    (a) IN GENERAL.-The owner of a patent may have relief by civil action against the owner of another patent that claims the same invention and has an earlier effective filing date, if the invention claimed in such other patent was derived from the inventor of the invention claimed in the patent owned by the person seeking relief under this section. (b) FILING LIMITATION.-An action under this section may be filed only before the end of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the issuance of the first