31 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 260,142 times 281 Legal Analyses
Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 273,590 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
Erickson v. Pardus
551 U.S. 89 (2007) Cited 63,493 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a complaint must "give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests"
Conley v. Gibson
355 U.S. 41 (1957) Cited 58,952 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"
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International
573 U.S. 208 (2014) Cited 1,398 times 513 Legal Analyses
Holding ineligible patent claims directed to the concept of "intermediated settlement," i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate the risk that only one party to an agreed-upon financial exchange will satisfy its obligation
Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.
566 U.S. 66 (2012) Cited 794 times 150 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the basic underlying concern that these patents tie up too much future use of laws of nature" reinforced the holding of ineligibility
Bilski v. Kappos
561 U.S. 593 (2010) Cited 814 times 159 Legal Analyses
Holding claims directed to hedging risk ineligible
Ramming v. U.S.
281 F.3d 158 (5th Cir. 2001) Cited 3,502 times
Holding that a court ruling on a Rule 12(b) motion may evaluate “ the complaint alone, the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record, or the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts”
Lormand v. US Unwired, Inc.
565 F.3d 228 (5th Cir. 2009) Cited 2,154 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that warnings "d[id] not qualify as meaningful cautionary language" because they "did not disclose that defendants knew from past experience that the [risks] posed an imminent threat of business and financial ruin and that some damage from these risks had already materialized"
Baker v. Putnal
75 F.3d 190 (5th Cir. 1996) Cited 2,584 times
Holding that disputed issues of fact precluded summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds where officer asserted that victim "was holding a semi-automatic pistol, loaded the pistol with ammunition, and leveled it at him from the passenger's side of the vehicle," but three witnesses testified that victim "took no threatening action toward" the officer, and officer and witnesses’ accounts conflicted whether the officer had issued any orders to the victim before shooting and disputed whether the victim "was even holding the pistol or pointing it at" the officer
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 354,229 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
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 160,289 times 196 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Section 101 - Inventions patentable
35 U.S.C. § 101 Cited 3,465 times 2245 Legal Analyses
Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

T-REX PROPERTY AB v. Fairway Outdoor Advertising, LLC

31 Cited authorities

Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

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

Holding that a complaint must "give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests"

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"

Holding ineligible patent claims directed to the concept of "intermediated settlement," i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate the risk that only one party to an agreed-upon financial exchange will satisfy its obligation

Holding that "the basic underlying concern that these patents tie up too much future use of laws of nature" reinforced the holding of ineligibility

Holding claims directed to hedging risk ineligible

Holding that a court ruling on a Rule 12(b) motion may evaluate “ the complaint alone, the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record, or the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts”

Holding that warnings "d[id] not qualify as meaningful cautionary language" because they "did not disclose that defendants knew from past experience that the [risks] posed an imminent threat of business and financial ruin and that some damage from these risks had already materialized"

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."