22 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 256,412 times   280 Legal Analyses
    Holding for a complaint to survive Rule 12(b), it must "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face"
  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 270,095 times   367 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "
  3. Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. Seb S. A.

    563 U.S. 754 (2011)   Cited 808 times   65 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a finding of deliberate ignorance requires the defendant to "take deliberate actions to avoid learning of [wrongdoing]."
  4. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.

    545 U.S. 913 (2005)   Cited 793 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable”
  5. Randall v. Scott

    610 F.3d 701 (11th Cir. 2010)   Cited 1,732 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"
  6. 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 658 times   12 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
  7. In re TS Tech USA Corp.

    551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 604 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
  8. DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co.

    471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 518 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"
  9. Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.

    377 U.S. 476 (1964)   Cited 411 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"
  10. MEMC Elec. Materials, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Materials Silicon Corp.

    420 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 268 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
  11. 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 349,819 times   936 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
  12. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 6,073 times   1060 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"
  13. Section 305 - Conduct of reexamination proceedings

    35 U.S.C. § 305   Cited 173 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"