§Why CasetextPricing

RPost Holdings Inc et al v. Constant Contact, Inc.

REPLY to Response to Motion re MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Willful Infringement Claims Under Rule 12

9 Cited authorities

  1. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 280,791 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 804 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. 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 680 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

  4. Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc.

    682 F.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 168 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the objective prong under Seagate was ultimately a question of law for the court, but leaving the subjective prong as a question of fact for the jury

  5. Inmotion Imagery Techs. v. Brain Damage Films

    CAUSE NO. 2:11-CV-414-JRG (E.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2012)   Cited 7 times

    CAUSE NO. 2:11-CV-414-JRG 08-10-2012 INMOTION IMAGERY TECHNOLOGIES Plaintiff, v. BRAIN DAMAGE FILMS, et al., Defendants. RODNEY GILSTRAP MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Before the Court is Defendant Galaxy Internet Group, LLC's ("Galaxy") Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Dkt. No. 8). After carefully considering the parties' written submissions, the Court GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART the Motion. II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On September 15, 2011, InMotion Imagery

  6. F5 Networks, Inc. v. A10 Networks, Inc.

    Case No. C07-1927RSL (W.D. Wash. Mar. 10, 2008)

    Case No. C07-1927RSL. March 10, 2008 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE COMPLAINT ROBERT LASNIK, District Judge I. INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the Court on a motion filed by defendant A10 Networks, Inc. ("A10") for an order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), striking the request for treble damages and the allegation of willfulness in the complaint filed by plaintiff F5 Networks, Inc. ("F5"). A10 contends that the complaint does not actually allege any willful

  7. 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 362,607 times   962 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  8. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 164,455 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  9. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 40,207 times   337 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity