§Why CasetextPricing

Soverain Software LLC v. Oracle Corporation et al

MOTION to Dismiss Indirect Infringement Claims of First Amended Complaint

15 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 271,409 times   281 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts are not required "to credit a complaint's conclusory statements without reference to its factual context"

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 284,187 times   370 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. Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. Seb S. A.

    563 U.S. 754 (2011)   Cited 847 times   67 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 1,225 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. Doe v. Myspace

    528 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2008)   Cited 827 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that CDA bars claims for negligence and gross negligence in not preventing a 13 year old girl from lying about her age to create a personal profile that led to contact by a sexual predator

  6. DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co.

    471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 527 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. McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp.

    501 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 415 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

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

    370 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 270 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

  9. Symantec v. Computer Assoc

    522 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 223 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

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

    438 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 135 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 366,511 times   968 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 166,425 times   198 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."