§Why CasetextPricing

T-Jat Systems 2006 Ltd. v. Expedia, Inc. (De), et Al.

REPLY BRIEF re MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

6 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 251,689 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. Com. of Pa. ex Rel. Zimmerman v. Pepsico, Inc.

    836 F.2d 173 (3d Cir. 1988)   Cited 1,371 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that legal theories set forth in a response brief cannot serve to amend a complaint in response to a motion to dismiss

  3. C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Guidant Corp.

    997 F. Supp. 556 (D. Del. 1998)   Cited 94 times
    Finding that a subsidiary company was not an agent for a holding company because the subsidiary was responsible for making its own day-to-day decisions

  4. Energy Marine Servs., Inc. v. DB Mobility Logistics AG

    Civil Action No. 15-24-GMS (D. Del. Jan. 22, 2016)   Cited 8 times
    Stating the moment of injury is "the relevant time frame" with no justification

  5. Sprint Commc'ns, L.P. v. Cox Commc'ns, Inc.

    896 F. Supp. 2d 1049 (D. Kan. 2012)   Cited 10 times

    Case No. 11–2683–JAR–KMH. 2012-09-14 SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS, L.P., Plaintiff, v. COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Cox Communications Kansas, LLC, Cox Kansas Telcom, LLC, and, CoxCom, LLC., Defendants. Bart Alan Starr, Lynn C. Herndon, B. Trent Webb, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff. David S. Bloch, Winston & Strawn, San Francisco, CA, Jay F. Fowler, Foulston Siefkin LLP, Wichita, KS, Michael L. Brody, Winston & Strawn, LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendants. JULIE A. ROBINSON Bart Alan

  6. SRI INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. INTERNET SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC.

    Civ. No. 04-1199-SLR (D. Del. Apr. 13, 2005)   Cited 5 times

    Civ. No. 04-1199-SLR. April 13, 2005 Timothy Devlin, Esquire of Fish Richardson, Wilmington, Delaware. Howard G. Pollack, Esquire and Michael J. Curley, Esquire of Fish Richardson, Redwood City, California. Counsel for Plaintiff. Richard L. Horwitz, Esquire and David E. Moore, Esquire of Potter Anderson Corroon, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Defendant Internet Security Systems, Inc. Of Counsel: Holmes J. Hawkins, III, Esquire and Natasha H. Moffitt, Esquire of King Spalding, Atlanta, Georgia