§Why CasetextPricing

Xilinx, Inc. v. Invention Investment Fund I LP et al

MOTION to Dismiss Xilinx's Complaint for Declaratory Judgment

37 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. Calder v. Jones

    465 U.S. 783 (1984)   Cited 4,784 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding a California court had personal jurisdiction over individual defendants when the defendants had not visited the state in connection with an allegedly defamatory article and "[we]re not responsible for the circulation of the article in California"

  4. Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington

    326 U.S. 310 (1945)   Cited 23,195 times   112 Legal Analyses
    Holding that states may exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants with "certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice’ " (quoting Milliken v. Meyer , 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940) )

  5. Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc.

    211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000)   Cited 1,645 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding the same in context of forum-selection-clause prohibition in California's franchise statute

  6. Cont'l Grain Co. v. Barge FBL-585

    364 U.S. 19 (1960)   Cited 1,084 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 1404 permits transfer of in rem claims along with in personam claims to more convenient district, even though in rem claim standing alone could not have been brought in transferee district

  7. Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Int’l Co.

    552 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 381 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "letters threatening suit for patent infringement sent to the alleged infringer by themselves do not suffice to create personal jurisdiction"

  8. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Lilly & Co.

    119 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 333 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that written description requires more than a "mere wish or plan for obtaining the claimed chemical invention"

  9. In re Vistaprint Limited and Officemax Incorporated

    628 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 224 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district court may properly deny § 1404 transfer based on judicial economy even "when all of the convenience factors clearly favor transfer."

  10. Benitec Aus. v. Nucleonics

    495 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 239 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the possibility of future activity that would be subject to a patent infringement claim was too uncertain to create a justiciable controversy

  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 362,607 times   962 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Section 1404 - Change of venue

    28 U.S.C. § 1404   Cited 29,370 times   192 Legal Analyses
    Granting Class Plaintiffs' motion to transfer action in order to "facilitate a unified settlement approval process together with the class action cases in" In re Amex ASR

  13. Rule 19 - Required Joinder of Parties

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 19   Cited 9,810 times   55 Legal Analyses
    Holding a person must be joined if disposing the action in the person's absence may leave an existing party subject to a "substantial" risk of incurring inconsistent obligations

  14. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,147 times   481 Legal Analyses
    Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."

  15. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,016 times   1010 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  16. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,513 times   2284 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."

  17. Section 281 - Remedy for infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 281   Cited 660 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Providing that " patentee shall have remedy by civil action for infringement of his patent"