§Why CasetextPricing

U.S.A. Dawgs, Inc. v. Crocs, Inc. et al

REPLY to Response to 13 MOTION to Dismiss

46 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 254,855 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. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 268,629 times   366 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. Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.

    508 U.S. 49 (1993)   Cited 1,137 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Holding litigants immune from an antitrust claim under Noerr-Pennington immunity

  4. Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc.

    244 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 1,925 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendant was not estopped from raising untimely res judicata defense

  5. Adams v. California Dept

    487 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2007)   Cited 915 times
    Holding that separate federal statutes "establish[ing] distinct rights enforceable by litigants" are not alone sufficient to differentiate prior and later filed actions

  6. Sheridan v. NGK Metals Corp.

    609 F.3d 239 (3d Cir. 2010)   Cited 748 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts interpreting state law should generally follow that state's intermediate appellate courts unless strong evidence suggests they should not

  7. Walker, Inc. v. Food Machinery

    382 U.S. 172 (1965)   Cited 878 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there may be a violation of the Sherman Act when a patent is procured by fraud, but recognizing that a patent is an exception to the general rule against monopolies

  8. Exergen Corporation v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

    575 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 679 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that allegation that "Exergen, its agents and/or attorneys . . . knew of the material information and deliberately withheld or misrepresented it" without naming "the specific individual associated with the filing or prosecution of the application" was not sufficiently particular to satisfy the "who" element of an inequitable conduct claim

  9. C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Systems, Inc.

    157 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 379 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "jury instruction on patent misuse" was overbroad, where it "focused primarily on the charge that [the patent holder] was attempting to enforce the patents against goods known not to be infringing"

  10. Clements v. Airport Authority of Washoe County

    69 F.3d 321 (9th Cir. 1995)   Cited 329 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that issue preclusion can be waived

  11. 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 348,148 times   927 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 39,081 times   320 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity

  13. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 22,233 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

  14. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,944 times   959 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  15. Rule 13 - Counterclaim and Crossclaim

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 13   Cited 4,937 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Determining whether counterclaims are compulsory