§Why CasetextPricing

Potter Voice Technologies LLC, v. Apple, Inc., et al.,

REPLY to Response to [175] MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff Potter Voice Technologies LLC's Third Amended Complaint

10 Cited authorities

  1. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 276,716 times   369 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. In re Seagate Technology

    497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 802 times   86 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an "advice of counsel" defense to willful infringement does not waive the attorney-client privilege as to trial counsel partly because post-filing conduct is usually not relevant to a finding of willful infringement

  3. Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm

    543 F.3d 683 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 205 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the specification as a whole may serve to limit the claims by repeatedly characterizing the invention in a specific manner

  4. St. Clair Intellectual Prop. Consultants, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.

    C.A. No. 10-425-LPS (D. Del. Mar. 28, 2012)   Cited 24 times
    Ruling that the plaintiff properly plead willful infringement by alleging the patents-in-suit were often called to the attention of HP personnel and representatives

  5. Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp. v. Hitachi Koki Co.

    Case No. 09-C-948 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 14, 2011)   Cited 14 times
    Noting that Seagate is not controlling of pleadings

  6. R+L Carriers, Inc. v. Drivertech LLC (In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig.)

    No. 2011-1101 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 7, 2012)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses

    2010-1493 2010-1494 2010-1495 2010-1496 2011-1101 2011-1102 06-07-2012 IN RE BILL OF LADING TRANSMISSION AND PROCESSING SYSTEM PATENT LITIGATION R+L CARRIERS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DRIVERTECH LLC, Defendant-Appellee, and PEOPLENET COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, QUALCOMM, INC., and MICRODEA, INC., Defendants-Appellees, and INTERMEC TECHNOLOGIES CORP., Defendant-Appellee, and AFFILIATED COMPUTER SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellee, and INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTOR COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, and PITT

  7. In re Bill of Lading Transmiss. Processing Sys

    695 F. Supp. 2d 680 (S.D. Ohio 2010)   Cited 10 times
    Granting motion to dismiss because plaintiffs complaint insufficiently alleged indirect infringement, and holding that even though the court agreed that it would be inappropriate to address whether a patent requires multiple users on a motion to dismiss, such claim construction was irrelevant for considering plaintiff's allegations

  8. AIR VENT, INC. v. OWENS CORNING CORPORATION

    02: 10-cv-01699 (W.D. Pa. Jun. 30, 2011)   Cited 4 times
    Dismissing induced infringement claim in part because of the complaint's failure to "contain any averments that [defendant] acted with the specific intent to induce or encourage any third party to infringe" plaintiff's patents

  9. 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 357,835 times   950 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  10. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 162,084 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."