§Why CasetextPricing

Red Bend Software, Inc. et al v. Google

MEMORANDUM in Support re Interim MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Indirect Infringement Claims

13 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 267,100 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 280,127 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

  3. DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co.

    471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 525 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"

  4. Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.

    377 U.S. 476 (1964)   Cited 416 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"

  5. Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. U.S. Philips

    363 F.3d 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 323 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an expert's unsupported and conclusory assertions are insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact

  6. Linear Technology Corp. v. Impala Linear

    379 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 285 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that term “circuit” itself in claim term “ ‘circuit’ for ‘monitoring a signal from the output terminal to generate a first feedback signal’ ” connotes structure

  7. Mallinckrodt Inc. v. E-Z-Em Inc.

    670 F. Supp. 2d 349 (D. Del. 2009)   Cited 82 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding the plaintiffs' contention that knowledge can be established by the filing of a complaint unpersuasive

  8. Diomed, Inc. v. Angiodynamics, Inc.

    450 F. Supp. 2d 130 (D. Mass. 2006)   Cited 7 times
    Finding insufficient prejudice where defendants were alerted to expert's theory from initial report and deposition

  9. MacNeill Engineering Co., Inc. v. Trisport, Ltd.

    59 F. Supp. 2d 199 (D. Mass. 1999)   Cited 12 times
    Concluding that "secretly recording a conversation outside Massachusetts does not give rise to liability under" Massachusetts’ electronic surveillance statute "even if the call originated within Massachusetts"

  10. 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 361,853 times   961 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  11. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 164,069 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  12. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 94,896 times   92 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint

  13. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 6,186 times   1084 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"