By Wendy R. Stein of Gibbons P.C.
Ms. Stein is an associate at Gibbons P.C. She focuses her practice on federal IP litigation and counseling. The following views are those of the author; they are not necessarily representative of Gibbons or any of its clients.
In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, the Supreme Court held that “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). In Twombly, a class of subscribers of local telephone and high speed internet services sued major telecommunications providers alleging that defendants conspired to prevent entry into their respective markets, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. See Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 313 F. Supp. 2d 174, 176 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (hereafter “Dist. Ct. Op.”). The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. See id. at 189. The Second Circuit reversed, reasoning that the complaint gave “fair notice” of the claim and “grounds upon which it rest[ed].” See Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 425 F.3d 99, 118-19 (2d Cir. 2005) (hereafter “Second Circuit Op.”). The Supr...
