25 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
Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. Seb S. A.
563 U.S. 754 (2011) Cited 820 times 66 Legal Analyses
Holding that a finding of deliberate ignorance requires the defendant to "take deliberate actions to avoid learning of [wrongdoing]."
Norris v. Hearst Trust
500 F.3d 454 (5th Cir. 2007) Cited 976 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding plaintiffs lacked standing because they were "neither consumers nor competitors in the market attempted to be constrained"
In re Seagate Technology
497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Cited 801 times 86 Legal Analyses
Holding that an "advice of counsel" defense to willful infringement does not waive the attorney-client privilege as to trial counsel partly because post-filing conduct is usually not relevant to a finding of willful infringement
R+L Carriers, Inc. v. Drivertech LLC (In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig.)
681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 666 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that pleading "the process for" using the accused product in an infringing way "has no other substantial non-infringing use" is not the same as pleading the accused product contains a component that can only infringe, and therefore fails to state a claim for contributory infringement
City of Clinton, Ark. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp.
632 F.3d 148 (5th Cir. 2010) Cited 604 times
Noting that federal pleading rules apply in diversity cases
NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.
418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 462 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that users of accused system could not infringe method claims in the United States because one step of the method was performed in Canada
Wilson v. Birnberg
667 F.3d 591 (5th Cir. 2012) Cited 324 times
Holding that prospective candidate whose name was not placed on ballot did not have a property interest in public office protected by procedural due process
Cross Med Prod v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek
424 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 351 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that there can be no direct infringement of a product claim where surgeons, and not the defendant, made the claimed apparatus in the operating room, and remanding to determine whether the surgeons directly infringed such that Medtronic could be held liable for indirect infringement
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 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 Cited 22,753 times 16 Legal Analyses
Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system
Section 271 - Infringement of patent
35 U.S.C. § 271 Cited 6,113 times 1078 Legal Analyses
Holding that testing is a "use"

Technology Properties Limited, LLC v. Canon, Inc. et al

25 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 finding of deliberate ignorance requires the defendant to "take deliberate actions to avoid learning of [wrongdoing]."

Holding plaintiffs lacked standing because they were "neither consumers nor competitors in the market attempted to be constrained"

Holding that an "advice of counsel" defense to willful infringement does not waive the attorney-client privilege as to trial counsel partly because post-filing conduct is usually not relevant to a finding of willful infringement

Holding that pleading "the process for" using the accused product in an infringing way "has no other substantial non-infringing use" is not the same as pleading the accused product contains a component that can only infringe, and therefore fails to state a claim for contributory infringement

Noting that federal pleading rules apply in diversity cases

Holding that users of accused system could not infringe method claims in the United States because one step of the method was performed in Canada

Holding that prospective candidate whose name was not placed on ballot did not have a property interest in public office protected by procedural due process

Holding that there can be no direct infringement of a product claim where surgeons, and not the defendant, made the claimed apparatus in the operating room, and remanding to determine whether the surgeons directly infringed such that Medtronic could be held liable for indirect infringement

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

Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

Holding that testing is a "use"