§Why CasetextPricing

RPost Holdings, Inc. et al v. Goodmail Systems, Inc.

MEMORANDUM in Support of MOTION to Dismiss Second Cause of Action 25

22 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 267,813 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 280,791 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

  3. Conley v. Gibson

    355 U.S. 41 (1957)   Cited 59,382 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief"

  4. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors

    266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 5,302 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that unwarranted inferences are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss

  5. Lucent Technologies v. Gateway

    580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 781 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "we see little evidentiary basis under Georgia-Pacific" for the damages award

  6. 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"

  7. Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic Holding

    581 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 308 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding no contributory infringement as a matter of law because "the accused devices are indisputably capable of non-infringing use" and the patent owner could not show the use was insubstantial

  8. Rutman Wine Co. v. E. J. Gallo Winery

    829 F.2d 729 (9th Cir. 1987)   Cited 437 times
    Holding district court's denial of leave to amend appropriate where the identified defects in prior order were not cured in amended complaint

  9. Pharmastem v. Viacell

    491 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 199 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "none of [the activities governed by 35 U.S.C. § 271(c)] refer to the provision of a service."

  10. 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

  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 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

  12. 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. . . ."

  13. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 6,194 times   1086 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"