16 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 260,930 times 281 Legal Analyses
Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 274,322 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
Foman v. Davis
371 U.S. 178 (1962) Cited 29,275 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that an appeal was improperly dismissed when the record as a whole — including a timely but incomplete notice of appeal and a premature but complete notice — revealed the orders petitioner sought to appeal
Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. Seb S. A.
563 U.S. 754 (2011) Cited 826 times 66 Legal Analyses
Holding that a finding of deliberate ignorance requires the defendant to "take deliberate actions to avoid learning of [wrongdoing]."
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 670 times 13 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
DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co.
471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006) Cited 520 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"
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.”
Schumer v. Laboratory Computer Systems
308 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Cited 258 times
Holding that the preambles at issue — "point of origin," "angle of rotation," and "scale" — did not limit the scope of the digitizer invention but simply described features that necessarily exit in any coordinate system for a digitizer
Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.
720 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2013) Cited 56 times 14 Legal Analyses
Upholding district court's refusal to limit the claim term “short-range communication protocols” to those listed in the patent
In re Robertson
169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Cited 65 times
Holding that inherent anticipation requires more than mere probability or possibility that the missing descriptive materials are present in the prior art
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 355,101 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
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 160,697 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 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses
35 U.S.C. § 282 Cited 3,926 times 140 Legal Analyses
Granting a presumption of validity to patents

Phigenix, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.

16 Cited authorities

Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

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

Holding that an appeal was improperly dismissed when the record as a whole — including a timely but incomplete notice of appeal and a premature but complete notice — revealed the orders petitioner sought to appeal

Holding that a finding of deliberate ignorance requires the defendant to "take deliberate actions to avoid learning of [wrongdoing]."

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

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"

Holding it obvious to “apply the use of the Internet to existing electronic processes at a time when doing so was commonplace.”

Holding that the preambles at issue — "point of origin," "angle of rotation," and "scale" — did not limit the scope of the digitizer invention but simply described features that necessarily exit in any coordinate system for a digitizer

Upholding district court's refusal to limit the claim term “short-range communication protocols” to those listed in the patent

Holding that inherent anticipation requires more than mere probability or possibility that the missing descriptive materials are present in the prior art

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. . . ."

Granting a presumption of validity to patents