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
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"
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"
Holding that an indemnity provision alone cannot establish intent to induce infringement unless "the primary purpose" of the provision was to induce infringement
Noting that "reexamination will be conducted according to the procedures established for initial examination under the provisions of Sections 132 and 133"