Legal Opinion

Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Agilent Technologies, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California

Decided March 7, 2014No. CV 12-01616 RSPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

RICHARD SEEBORG, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Genetic Technologies Limited (“GTG”) brings this action for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,612,179 (“the '179 patent”) against defendant Agilent Technologies, Inc. Agilent moves to dismiss plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing the '179 patent claims an unpatentable law of nature. Although the '179 patent does embrace a law of nature, defendant’s motion to dismiss must be denied, because Agilent has not…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Jena Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department Al Olsen, Police Chief, Individually and as a Police AgentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
  4. Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2012
  5. Bilski v. KapposSupreme Court of the United States · 2010

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 2014
  2. Genetic Veterinary Sciences, Inc. v. Canine EIC Genetics, LLCDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2015
  3. (PC) Hernandez v. CovelloDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2024
  4. Vineyard Investigations v. E. & J. Gallo WineryDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2021

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API