§Why CasetextPricing

Soverain Software LLC v. Office Depot, Inc.

MOTION to Dismiss Indirect Infringement Claims of the First Amended Complaint

13 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 252,377 times   279 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 266,313 times   365 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 803 times   65 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a finding of deliberate ignorance requires the defendant to "take deliberate actions to avoid learning of [wrongdoing]."

  4. Gonzalez v. Kay

    577 F.3d 600 (5th Cir. 2009)   Cited 1,156 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that some letters are "so deceptive and misleading as to violate the FDCPA as a matter of law," others are not deceptive as a matter of law, and many are somewhere in the middle, requiring further consideration by the district court beyond the initial motion to dismiss phase of the pleadings.

  5. DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co.

    471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 516 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"

  6. McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp.

    501 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 410 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a direct infringement claim made in accordance with Form 16 (now Form 18) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure meets the Twombly pleading standard

  7. Metabolite Lab., Inc. v. Laboratory Corp.

    370 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 268 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to show that a method step was carried out by the direct infringer, even in the absence of direct evidence for direct infringer

  8. Symantec v. Computer Assoc

    522 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 221 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence of discussions between named inventor and putative co-inventor concerning subject matter of claimed invention was insufficient to establish co-inventorship

  9. Toshiba Corp. v. Imation Corp.

    681 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 181 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court's conclusion that a finding of a substantial non-infringing use precludes a finding of induced infringement was legal error

  10. Golden Blount, Inc. v. Robert H. Peterson

    438 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 134 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendant committed direct infringement in the instances that it assembled the components itself into the complete patented product, and that it committed indirect infringement when it provided the components to its customers along with directions as to how to assemble them into the patented product

  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 345,529 times   922 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss