34 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 267,813 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 280,791 times 369 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
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 680 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
Theme Promotions v. News America Marketing Fsi
539 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 223 times
Holding that suit was not objectively baseless where it was "potentially meritorious"
Santana Products v. Bobrick Washroom Equipment
401 F.3d 123 (3d Cir. 2005) Cited 239 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff's failure to rebut the presumption of laches after the analogous statute of limitations had run barred a Lanham Act claim requesting both injunctive and monetary relief
Zenith Elecs. Corp. v. Exzec, Inc.
182 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Cited 260 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that dismissal of patent claims with prejudice did not divest our jurisdiction to review a district court's decision regarding nonpatent claims
Rice v. Fox Broadcasting Co.
330 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 209 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that because the plaintiff's video “only sold approximately 17,000 copies between 1986 and 1999,” it could not be considered “widely disseminated” despite some evidence of national publicity
Societe de Conditionnement en Aluminium v. Hunter Engineering Co., Inc.
655 F.2d 938 (9th Cir. 1981) Cited 280 times
Holding that an "actual threat of litigation" is not required to establish standing; instead, a plaintiff must only meet the "much lower threshhold" of having "a real and reasonable apprehension" of litigation
Ludwig v. Superior Court
37 Cal.App.4th 8 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) Cited 168 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that speech regarding the environmental effects of a mall satisfied the anti-SLAPP statute's "public interest" requirement
Qarbon.com Inc. v. eHelp Corp.
315 F. Supp. 2d 1046 (N.D. Cal. 2004) Cited 126 times
Holding an answer alleging plaintiff is "barred from recovery . . . by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel, and unclean hands" did not provide fair notice of affirmative defenses because it did not allege facts justifying any of these doctrines
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 164,455 times 197 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Rule 41 - Dismissal of Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 Cited 116,268 times 200 Legal Analyses
Holding that such dismissal "operates as an adjudication on the merits"
Section Amendment I - Religion and Expression
U.S. Const. amend. I Cited 7,434 times 3 Legal Analyses
Recognizing the "right to petition the Government for redress of grievances"
Rule 84 - Abrogated (Apr. 29, 2015, eff. Dec. 1, 2015).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 84 Cited 1,037 times 7 Legal Analyses
Explaining that the appended forms "are sufficient under the rules and are intended to indicate the simplicity and brevity of statement which the rules contemplate"

The Sliding Door Company v. KLS Doors LLC et al

34 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 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

Holding that suit was not objectively baseless where it was "potentially meritorious"

Holding that a plaintiff's failure to rebut the presumption of laches after the analogous statute of limitations had run barred a Lanham Act claim requesting both injunctive and monetary relief

Holding that dismissal of patent claims with prejudice did not divest our jurisdiction to review a district court's decision regarding nonpatent claims

Holding that because the plaintiff's video “only sold approximately 17,000 copies between 1986 and 1999,” it could not be considered “widely disseminated” despite some evidence of national publicity

Holding that an "actual threat of litigation" is not required to establish standing; instead, a plaintiff must only meet the "much lower threshhold" of having "a real and reasonable apprehension" of litigation

Holding that speech regarding the environmental effects of a mall satisfied the anti-SLAPP statute's "public interest" requirement

Holding an answer alleging plaintiff is "barred from recovery . . . by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel, and unclean hands" did not provide fair notice of affirmative defenses because it did not allege facts justifying any of these doctrines

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

Holding that such dismissal "operates as an adjudication on the merits"

Recognizing the "right to petition the Government for redress of grievances"

Explaining that the appended forms "are sufficient under the rules and are intended to indicate the simplicity and brevity of statement which the rules contemplate"