§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 260,930 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 274,322 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

  3. Conley v. Gibson

    355 U.S. 41 (1957)   Cited 59,006 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 5,184 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 765 times   20 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 520 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 301 times   3 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 421 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 81 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 355,101 times   943 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 160,697 times   196 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 6,121 times   1080 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"