21 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 255,203 times   280 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. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 268,949 times   367 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "
  3. Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting

    368 U.S. 464 (1962)   Cited 2,861 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding agent potentially liable where he knew of the "obvious purpose and necessary effect" to eliminate independent stations and "had a personal stake in the outcome"
  4. Lowrey v. Texas a M University System

    117 F.3d 242 (5th Cir. 1997)   Cited 1,338 times
    Holding that “title IX affords a private right of action for retaliation against the employees of federally funded educational institutions.”
  5. Test Masters Educ. Serv., Inc. v. Singh

    428 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2005)   Cited 801 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Singh was precluded from re-litigating issue of secondary meaning
  6. Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc.

    48 F.3d 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 573 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a district court did not clearly err in finding materiality where the prior art reference at issue had been considered material by examiners in related foreign patent applications
  7. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Watkins

    11 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 359 times
    Holding that, in order to be ripe, a dispute must meet both prongs of Abbott Laboratories
  8. Lahoti v. Vericheck, Inc.

    586 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 146 times
    Finding bad faith in part because the defendant "asked for as much as $72,500 to sell the Domain Name to Vericheck even though Lahoti had no interests associated with the 'Vericheck' name"
  9. Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Co.

    590 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 132 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 292 required the court to impose a penalty for false marking on a per article basis
  10. Clontech Laboratories v. Invitrogen Corp.

    406 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 129 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a plaintiff must show that a defendant "did not have an honest good faith belief in marking its products"
  11. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 157,606 times   196 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
  12. Section 287 - Limitation on damages and other remedies; marking and notice

    35 U.S.C. § 287   Cited 761 times   93 Legal Analyses
    Limiting liability of medical practitioners for performance of certain medical and surgical procedures
  13. Section 292 - False marking

    35 U.S.C. § 292   Cited 565 times   61 Legal Analyses
    Providing cause of action and share of recovery against a person falsely marking patented articles