§Why CasetextPricing

Symantec Corporation v. Acronis, Inc

RESPONSE

11 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 266,946 times   281 Legal Analyses
    Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

  2. Prasco, LLC v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp.

    537 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 302 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that one prior lawsuit concerning different products, without more, was not sufficient to sustain an actual controversy

  3. United States v. City of Redwood City

    640 F.2d 963 (9th Cir. 1981)   Cited 508 times
    Applying § 409 to the owner of the port at which the subject barge sank, as well to the owner of the private company which provided security at the port

  4. Sanders v. Kennedy

    794 F.2d 478 (9th Cir. 1986)   Cited 378 times
    Reversing Parratt dismissal where plaintiffs alleged Monell due process claim based on local government’s official policy, practice, or custom, and the "availability of a state tort remedy" was irrelevant

  5. Sagan v. Apple Computer, Inc.

    874 F. Supp. 1072 (C.D. Cal. 1994)   Cited 157 times

    CV 94-2180 LGB (BRx) June 27, 1994 Peter W. James, Anthony M. Keats, Dennis F. Hernandez, Baker Hostetler, Los Angeles, CA, for defendant Apple Computer, Inc. Peter Laird, Ralph C. Loeb, Karen Brodkin, Edelstein Laird, P.C., Los Angeles, CA, for plaintiff Carl Sagan. BAIRD, District Judge. Defendant's motion to dismiss, motion for a more definite statement, and motion to strike came on regularly for hearing before this Court on June 27, 1994. After reviewing the materials submitted by the parties

  6. Sony Corp.. v. Lg Electronics U.S.. Inc.

    768 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (C.D. Cal. 2011)   Cited 25 times
    Recognizing "a split in authority as to whether Iqbal and Twombly demand that a plaintiff alleging a claim for contributory infringement plead facts that establish the individual elements set forth in Lucent Techs"

  7. MESH COMM, LLC v. EKA SYSTEMS, INC.

    Case No. 8:09-cv-1064-T-33TGW (M.D. Fla. Mar. 4, 2010)   Cited 5 times
    Sustaining plaintiff's infringement allegations without discussion of allegation of no substantial non-infringing uses

  8. B-50.COM, LLC v. Infosync Services, LLC

    Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-1994-D (N.D. Tex. Mar. 22, 2011)   Cited 1 times

    Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-1994-D. March 22, 2011 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SIDNEY FITZWATER, District Judge The motion of defendant InfoSync Services, LLC ("InfoSync") to dismiss the claims of plaintiff B-50.com, LLC ("B-50") for inducement of patent infringement and contributory patent infringement pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) is denied because B-50 has satisfied the pleadings standards of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550

  9. Rambus, Inc. v. NVIDIA Corporation

    No. C 08-3343 SI (N.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2008)

    No. C 08-3343 SI. December 30, 2008 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR STAY SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge Defendant's motion to stay was submitted to Court without oral argument. Having considered the papers submitted, the Court hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part defendant's motion to stay. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Rambus Inc. is a corporation that develops "memory interface solutions that enable higher performance and system bandwidth for a broad range of electronic

  10. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 163,974 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  11. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 6,185 times   1084 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"