• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
Displaying 24-25 of 25 results

No. 22 RESPONSE to THE KROGER CO.'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION [DKT. 14] TO DISMISS RFCYBER CORP.S ...

Document RFCyber Corp. v. Starbucks Corporation, 2:24-cv-00550, No. 22 (E.D.Tex. Oct. 24, 2024)
INFRINGEMENT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(6)
Defendant The Kroger Co. (“Kroger”) submits this reply in support of its motion (Dkt. 13 in Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-00548-JRG) to dismiss the claims of Plaintiff RFCyber Corp. (“RFCyber”) for pre-suit willful infringement and pre-suit indirect infringement.
For the purpose of judicial efficiency and “to secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” in accordance with Rule 1, Kroger respectfully adopts Defendant Walmart Inc.’s reply brief (Dkt. 35 in RFCyber Corp. v. Walmart, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-00551-JRG (E.D.
Walmart’s parallel motion to dismiss is based on the same deficiencies in RFCyber’s complaint against Kroger.
1 Kroger does not adopt footnote 1 of Walmart’s reply because Kroger did not participate in the conference referenced in that footnote.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 17 RESPONSE in Opposition re 14 MOTION PARTIAL MOTION PURSUANT TO RULE 12(b)(6) TO DISMISS PRE-SUIT ...

Document RFCyber Corp. v. Starbucks Corporation, 2:24-cv-00550, No. 17 (E.D.Tex. Oct. 15, 2024)
A complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod LLC, 883 F.3d 1337, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).
To meet this requirement, the plaintiff must plead “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
“A well-pled allegation addressed to the lack of substantial noninfringing uses is sufficient to satisfy the knowledge element of contributory infringement.” Motiva Pats., 408 F. Supp.
This Court has held that “a patentee need not allege pre-suit knowledge of the patent to state a claim for post-suit induced infringement.” Corydoras Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 2:16- CV-00538-JRG, 2016 WL 9242435, at *2 (E.D.
Tex Mar. 24, 2014)) (“If pre-suit knowledge were required, companies would have carte blanche to induce infringement purposefully provided that they were unaware of the patent prior to suit.”).
cite Cite Document
Analyze
<< 1 2 3

Can’t find a case you think should be here?

Use our supplemental search tool to find dockets that you may not see here. Information on Fees

Start a Supplemental Search