green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 6×
53.3 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 36 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Charles Cayce v. VGW, LTD., ET AL.; Charles Cayce v. Zynga, Inc.; Dianne Fuqua v. Playtika, LTD. ET AL.; Wade Jenkins v. Doubledown Interactive LLC; Clay Manning Gunkel v. Huuuge, Inc. ET AL.
ven if the united states suffers no proprietary injury involving diminishment of the federal treasury, suffers an injury when the false marking statute is violated, juniper had standing to assert a qui tam claim.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Charles Cayce v. VGW, LTD., ET AL.; Charles Cayce v. Zynga, Inc.; Dianne Fuqua v. Playtika, LTD. ET AL.; Wade Jenkins v. Doubledown Interactive LLC; Clay Manning Gunkel v. Huuuge, Inc. ET AL.
ven if the united states suffers no proprietary injury involving diminishment of the federal treasury, suffers an injury when the false marking statute is violated, juniper had standing to assert a qui tam claim.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Charles Cayce v. VGW, LTD., ET AL.; Charles Cayce v. Zynga, Inc.; Dianne Fuqua v. Playtika, LTD. ET AL.; Wade Jenkins v. Doubledown Interactive LLC; Clay Manning Gunkel v. Huuuge, Inc. ET AL.
ven if the united states suffers no proprietary injury involving diminishment of the federal treasury, suffers an injury when the false marking statute is violated, juniper had standing to assert a qui tam claim.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Charles Cayce v. VGW, LTD., ET AL.; Charles Cayce v. Zynga, Inc.; Dianne Fuqua v. Playtika, LTD. ET AL.; Wade Jenkins v. Doubledown Interactive LLC; Clay Manning Gunkel v. Huuuge, Inc. ET AL.
ven if the united states suffers no proprietary injury involving diminishment of the federal treasury, suffers an injury when the false marking statute is violated, juniper had standing to assert a qui tam claim.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Charles Cayce v. VGW, LTD., ET AL.; Charles Cayce v. Zynga, Inc.; Dianne Fuqua v. Playtika, LTD. ET AL.; Wade Jenkins v. Doubledown Interactive LLC; Clay Manning Gunkel v. Huuuge, Inc. ET AL.
ven if the united states suffers no proprietary injury involving diminishment of the federal treasury, suffers an injury when the false marking statute is violated, juniper had standing to assert a qui tam claim.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re Bill of Lading Transmission and Processing System Patent Litigation
to survive a motion to dismiss, a com- plaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
CoachComm, LLC v. Westcom Wireless, Inc.
Cal. May 14, 2009), aff’d 643 F.3d 1346, 1349 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
EYENAVISION, INC. v. ENCHROMA, INC.
“The two elements of a § 292 false marking claim are (1) marking an unpatented article and (2) intent to deceive the public.” Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Shipley, 643 F.3d 1346, 1350 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corporation of America
Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Shipley, 643 F.3d 1346, 1350 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sanho Corporation v. Kaijet Technology International Limited, Inc.
Cir. 2005) (“When the statute refers to an ‘unpatented article’ the statute means that the article in question is not covered by at least one claim of each patent with which the article is marked.”). “[T]he two elements of a § 292 false marking claim are (1) marking an unpatented article and (2) intent to deceive the public.” Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Shipley, 643 F.3d 1346, 1350 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Thermolife International, LLC v. Compound Solutions, Inc.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Shipley, 643 F.3d 1346, 1350 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sestra Systems, Inc. v. BarTrack, Inc.
Juniper Networks, Inc., v. Shipley, 643 F.3d 1346, 1350 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
ThermoLife International LLC v. American Fitness Wholesalers LLC
See id.; Juniper Networks, Inc. v. 12 Shipley, 643 F.3d 1346, 1350 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Metricolor LLC v. L'Oreal S.A.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Shipley, 643 F.3d 1346, 1350 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ThermoLife International LLC v. Neogenis Labs Incorporated
The other group is claims based on allegations that these products do not practice the three patents which are still listed on the products’ actual labels (the under-dosed claims). “‘The two elements of a § 292 false marking claim are (1) marking an unpatented article and (2) intent to deceive the public.’” Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Shipley, 643 F.3d 1346, 1350 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC
(2×)
Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Shipley, 643 F.3d 1346, 1350 (Fed.Cir.2011) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Iris Corporation v. Japan Airlines Corporation
Ju niper Networks, Inc. v. Shipley, 643 F.3d 1346, 1350 (Fed.Cir.2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, Llc
(2×)
Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Shipley, 643 F.3d 1346, 1350 (Fed.Cir.2011) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Accent Packaging, Inc. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Shipley, 643 F.3d 1346, 1350 (Fed.Cir.2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pecorino v. Vutec Corp.
A number of courts have held that absent a clear repudiation of Form 18 by the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit, or the applicable regional circuit, see Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Shipley, 643 F.3d 1346, 1350 (Fed.Cir.2011) (“This court reviews dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under the law Of the regional circuit”) (citing McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 501 F.3d 1354, 1355-56 (Fed.Cir.2007)), “a complaint that conforms to Form 18 suffices to state a claim for direct patent infringement.” Gradient, 848 F.Supp.2d at 407 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kenney Orthopedic, LLC v. United States
The Government argues that Count III, alleging misrepresentation in the inducement, must be dismissed, because it is not pleaded with sufficient detail, as required by RCFC 9(b). 4/16/12 Gov’t Mot. at 26-27; 6/4/12 Gov’t Reply at 6-9 (citing Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Shipley, 643 F.3d 1346, 1350 (Fed.Cir.2011)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Adirondack Cookie Co. v. Monaco Baking Co.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Shipley, 643 F.3d 1346, 1351 (Fed.Cir.2011) (quoting Clontech Labs., Inc. v. Invitrogen Corp., 406 F.3d 1347, 1356-57 (Fed.Cir.2005)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States ex rel. FLFMC, LLC v. TFH Publications, Inc.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Shipley, 643 F.3d 1346, 1351 (Fed.Cir.2011) (quoting Clontech Labs., Inc. v. Invitrogen Corp., 406 F.3d 1347, 1356-57 (Fed.Cir.2005)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Maxwell v. United States
(2×)
When determining whether to grant a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court “must accept as true all the factual allegations in the complaint” and make “all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-movant.” Sommers Oil Co. v. United States, 241 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed.Cir.2001). “ ‘[Wjhile the court assumes that the facts in a complaint are trae, it is not required to indulge in unwarranted inferences in order to save a complaint from dismissal.’ ” Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Shipley, 643 F.3d 1346, 1350 (Fed.Cir.2011) (alteration in original) (quoting Metzler Inv.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gradient Enterprises, Inc. v. Skype Technologies S.A.
A number of courts have held that absent a clear repudiation of Form 18 by the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit, or the applicable regional circuit, see Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Shipley, 643 F.3d 1346, 1350 (Fed.Cir.2011) (“This court reviews dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under the law of the regional circuit”) (citing McZeal, 501 F.3d at 1355-56 ), a complaint that conforms to Form 18 suffices to state a claim for direct patent infringement.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States
Rule 9(b)’s “heightened pleading standard,” Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Shipley, 643 F.3d 1346, 1350 (Fed.Cir.2011), applies to “all cases sounding in fraud or mistake,” In re BP Lubricants USA Inc., 637 F.3d 1307, 1310 (Fed.Cir.2011).
cited
Cited "see"
Bee Warehouse LLC v. Blazer
See Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Shipley, 643 F.3d 1346, 1350 (Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
Sanderling Management Ltd. v. Snap Inc.
See Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Shipley, 643 F.3d 1346, 1352 (Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
Thermolife International, LLC v. Am. Fitness Wholesalers, LLC
See Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Shipley, 643 F.3d 1346, 1350 (Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
ThermoLife International LLC v. MusclePharm Corporation
See Juniper 27 Networks, Inc. v. Shipley, 643 F.3d 1346, 1350 (Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
ThermoLife International LLC v. Sparta Nutrition LLC
See 24 Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Shipley, 643 F.3d 1346, 1350 (Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
Kenney Orthopedic, LLC v. United States
See Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Shipley, 643 F.3d 1346, 1350 (Fed.Cir.2011).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Top Brand LLC v. Cozy Comfort Company, LLC
Lusby v. Rolls-Royce Corp., 570 F.3d 849, 853 (7th Cir. 2009)); see also Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Shipley, 643 F.3d 1346, 1350 (Fed.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sheryl Taylor v. United States
“Conelusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences of fact do not suffice to support a claim.” Bradley v. Chiron Corp., 136 F.3d 1317, 1322 (Fed.Cir. 1998); see also Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Shipley, 643 F.3d 1346, 1350 (Fed.Cir.2011).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
R+L Carriers, Inc. v. DriverTech LLC
See, e.g., Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Shipley, 643 F.3d 1346, 1350 (Fed.Cir.2011) (“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”); In re BP Lubricants USA Inc., 637 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed.Cir.2011) (“A plaintiff is not empowered under the Rules ‘to plead the bare elements of his cause of action ... and expect his complaint to survive a motion to dismiss.’ ”); Totes-Isotoner Corp. v. United States, 594 F.3d 1346, 1355 (Fed.Cir.2010) (“a plaintiff must provide a short an…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rogers v. TRISTAR PRODUCTS, INC.
(2×)
Stauffer's standing as the United States’ assignee does not depend upon the alleged injury to the United States being proprietary, as opposed to sovereign.”); see also Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Shipley, 643 F.3d 1346, 1353 , 2011 WL 1601995, at *6 (Fed.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Peter M. SHIPLEY, Defendant-Appellee
v.
Peter M. SHIPLEY, Defendant-Appellee
2010-1327.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Aug 26, 2010.
Jonathan S. Kagan, Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant., Andrew T. Oliver, Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Unpublished
Citer courts: Federal Circuit (1)
ON MOTION
ORDER
Upon consideration of Juniper Networks, Inc.’s motion for an extension of time, until September 22, 2010, to file its reply brief,
It Is Ordered That:
The motion is granted. No further extensions should be anticipated.