22 Cited authorities

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
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
Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. Seb S. A.
563 U.S. 754 (2011) Cited 820 times 66 Legal Analyses
Holding that a finding of deliberate ignorance requires the defendant to "take deliberate actions to avoid learning of [wrongdoing]."
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.
545 U.S. 913 (2005) Cited 797 times 32 Legal Analyses
Holding that “one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable”
Randall v. Scott
610 F.3d 701 (11th Cir. 2010) Cited 1,755 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts do not construe a pleading drafted by counsel with the same leniency that they otherwise afford to pro se litigants who lack "the benefit of a legal education"
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
In re TS Tech USA Corp.
551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 607 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court's refusal to considerably weigh this factor in favor of transfer was erroneous when the witnesses would need to travel approximately 900 more miles to attend trial in Texas than in Ohio
DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co.
471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006) Cited 519 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"
Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.
377 U.S. 476 (1964) Cited 412 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) "require a showing that the alleged contributory infringer knew that the combination for which his component was especially designed was both patented and infringing"
MEMC Elec. Materials, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Materials Silicon Corp.
420 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 269 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that an indemnity provision alone cannot establish intent to induce infringement unless "the primary purpose" of the provision was to induce infringement
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
Section 271 - Infringement of patent
35 U.S.C. § 271 Cited 6,113 times 1078 Legal Analyses
Holding that testing is a "use"
Section 305 - Conduct of reexamination proceedings
35 U.S.C. § 305 Cited 174 times 12 Legal Analyses
Noting that "reexamination will be conducted according to the procedures established for initial examination under the provisions of Sections 132 and 133"

R.D. Jones, Stop Experts, Inc. et al v. Carmanah Technologies Corporation et al

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

Holding that “one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable”

Holding that courts do not construe a pleading drafted by counsel with the same leniency that they otherwise afford to pro se litigants who lack "the benefit of a legal education"

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 district court's refusal to considerably weigh this factor in favor of transfer was erroneous when the witnesses would need to travel approximately 900 more miles to attend trial in Texas than in Ohio

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 that contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) "require a showing that the alleged contributory infringer knew that the combination for which his component was especially designed was both patented and infringing"

Holding that an indemnity provision alone cannot establish intent to induce infringement unless "the primary purpose" of the provision was to induce infringement

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Holding that testing is a "use"

Noting that "reexamination will be conducted according to the procedures established for initial examination under the provisions of Sections 132 and 133"