§Why CasetextPricing

Polaris Innovations Limited v. Dell Inc.

Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Certain of Dell's and NVIDIA's Counterclaims

8 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. 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 666 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

  4. Doe v. Robertson

    751 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2014)   Cited 63 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing theory but reversing denial of dismissal based on qualified immunity

  5. 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

  6. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,325 times   1038 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

  7. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,104 times   469 Legal Analyses
    Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."

  8. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,970 times   984 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"