Report
pura-scents-v-atmos
24 authorities checked
How this report was built
AI inference calls
0
Citations parsed
24
Sources queried
5
Cornell LII, CourtListener, Federal court adapters, State code databases, govinfo
Source texts retrieved
19
Quotes checked
17
10 matched in source text
Verification runs deterministically against authoritative public databases. Your brief is not sent to OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, or any other third-party model.
Click any citation below to see how we verified it, the matched source, and a per-quote breakdown.
§Authorities
|
1 Minter v. Prime Equip. Grp., Inc., 451 F.3d 1196, 1206 (10th Cir. 2006) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Minter v. Prime Equipment Co”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
2 Jefferson Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. R-1 v. Moody's Inv.'s Servs., Inc., 175 F.3d 848, 859 (10th Cir. 1999) flagged
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
0 of 1 located
Why we flagged this
- At least one attributed quote wasn't located in the retrieved text.
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Jefferson County School District No. R-1 v. Moody's Investor's Services, Inc”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“[a]district court may deny leave to amend on grounds of futility if the proposed amendment would not withstand a motion to dismiss or if it otherwise fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
Not found in the cited opinion. We tried exact matching, bracketed substitutions, ellipsis-split joins, and punctuation-tolerant matching — none matched.
3 Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Foman v. Davis”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, [or] undue prejudice to the opposing party.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
4 Bradley v. Val-Mejias, 379 F.3d 892, 901 (10th Cir. 2004) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Bradley v. Val-Mejias”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“would be subject to dismissal.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
5 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
6 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 3 of 3 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Ashcroft v. Iqbal”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“threadbare recital”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“supported by mere conclusory statements.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
7 Green Oak Hedge Fund v. Hopkinson, No. 2:06-cv-636, 2007 WL 2029314 (D. Utah Jul. 9, 2007) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
We couldn't independently confirm the reporter triple, but we believe this is the matching case based on CourtListener's docket index.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
View opinion on GovInfo →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“(1) a contract, (2) performance by the party seeking recovery, (3) breach of contract by the other party, and (4) damages.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
8 Balfour Beatty Infrastructure Inc. v. Am. Track Generations LLC, No. 19-249, 2020 WL 13049359, at *4 (D. Wyo. June 22, 2020) pacer paywall only
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
No
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· opinion text unavailable
How we matched this
We couldn't independently confirm the reporter triple, but we believe this is the matching case based on CourtListener's docket index.
Why we couldn't check the quotes
We couldn't retrieve any opinion text for this citation from our public sources. The case may only be available on a paid service like Westlaw or Lexis. Without the text, we can't check whether the brief's quotes appear in the opinion.
View matched docket on CourtListener →Quotes attributed to this authority
These quotes have not been verified because the opinion text wasn't available. Use the docket link above to locate the cited ruling and compare directly.
only contains conclusory statements that are turned into factual allegations when preceded by 'on information and belief' statements.
Not verified: opinion text unavailable.
9 Bayer Corp. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 72 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1120 (N.D. Cal. 1999) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Bayer Corp. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
10 PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond, 54 F.3d 1262, 1269 (7th Cir. 1995) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Pepsico, Inc., a Corporation v. William E. Redmond, Jr., and the Quaker Oats Company, a Corporation”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
11 Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1247 (10th Cir. 2008) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Robbins Ex Rel. Robbins v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Department of Human Services”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
12 Bos. Sci. Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 647 F.3d 1353, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011) flagged
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
0 of 1 located
Why we flagged this
- At least one attributed quote wasn't located in the retrieved text.
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Boston Scientific Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“place the alleged infringer on notice of what activity…is being accused of infringement”
Not found in the cited opinion. We tried exact matching, bracketed substitutions, ellipsis-split joins, and punctuation-tolerant matching — none matched.
13 Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 377 U.S. 476, 488 (1964) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“knowingly induced infringement and possessed specific intent to encourage another's infringement.”
This quote does not appear in the cited opinion's text, but may be a canonical restatement of the opinion — the language appears in another opinion this brief cites.
14 Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc., 572 U.S. 915, 920 (2014) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
15 In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig., 681 F.3d 1323, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2012) flagged
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
0 of 1 located
Why we flagged this
- At least one attributed quote wasn't located in the retrieved text.
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “R+L Carriers, Inc. v. DriverTech LLC”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“merely reciting the claim elements and [stating the defendant] infringes [is] not sufficient”
Not found in the cited opinion. We tried exact matching, bracketed substitutions, ellipsis-split joins, and punctuation-tolerant matching — none matched.
16 U.S. Patent No. 12,329,886 manual verify
Citation exists?
Not verified
Source text retrieved?
No
Quotes found in source?
N/A
· source text unavailable
Please verify this one manually
This citation falls outside our automated coverage. Law reviews, treatises, restatements, and legislative packages predating govinfo's collection window don't have a free full-text source we can reliably retrieve. The citation itself looks well-formed; a reviewer with access to HeinOnline, Westlaw, Lexis, or a law library can confirm. This isn't a defect in the citation; it's a coverage gap in our automated sources.
Quotes attributed to this authority
These quotes have not been verified because the source text wasn't retrieved.
receiving scheduling data associated with [a]scent dispensing device installed in a particular room
Not verified: source text unavailable.
determining a schedule associated with the device installed in [the] particular room based on the timeframe
Not verified: source text unavailable.
17 18 U.S.C. § 1836 flagged
Citation exists?
Pass
· high confidence
Source text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in source?
0 of 1 located
Why we flagged this
- At least one attributed quote wasn't located in the retrieved text.
How we matched this
Matched on Cornell Law's online code (LII).
View text on Cornell Law (LII) →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“(1) the existence of a trade secret, (2) misappropriation of the trade secret, and (3) use of the trade secret in interstate commerce.”
Not found in the cited source text. We tried exact matching, bracketed substitutions, ellipsis-split joins, and punctuation-tolerant matching — none matched.
18 35 U.S.C. § 271 clean
Citation exists?
Pass
· high confidence
Source text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in source?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
Matched on Cornell Law's online code (LII).
View text on Cornell Law (LII) →
20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) clean
Citation exists?
Pass
· high confidence
Source text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in source?
Pass· 2 of 2 located
How we matched this
Matched on Cornell Law's online code (LII).
View text on Cornell Law (LII) →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“freely give leave”
Found word-for-word in the source text.
“when justice so requires.”
Found word-for-word in the source text.
21 Rule 12(b)(6) clean
Citation exists?
Pass
· high confidence
Source text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in source?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
Matched on Cornell Law's online code (LII).
View text on Cornell Law (LII) →
22 Rule 12(b) clean
Citation exists?
Pass
· high confidence
Source text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in source?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
Matched on Cornell Law's online code (LII).
View text on Cornell Law (LII) →
23 Utah Code §§ 13-24-1 manual verify
Citation exists?
Not verified
Source text retrieved?
Link only
Quotes found in source?
N/A
· no quotes to check
Please verify this one manually
We've identified the source URL for this citation, but the host blocks automated tools so we couldn't pull the text to verify the quotes ourselves. The link below opens fine in a browser; click through to manually confirm the section text matches the brief.
View text on state code →24 Utah Code § 13-24-2 manual verify
Citation exists?
Not verified
Source text retrieved?
Link only
Quotes found in source?
N/A
· no quotes to check
Please verify this one manually
We've identified the source URL for this citation, but the host blocks automated tools so we couldn't pull the text to verify the quotes ourselves. The link below opens fine in a browser; click through to manually confirm the section text matches the brief.
View text on state code →25 U.S. Patent No. 12,329,886 retrieval gap
Citation exists?
Pass
· medium confidence
Source text retrieved?
No
Quotes found in source?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
Resolved as a non-case authority (statute, rule, or regulation).
View text on source →
§Record & filing references (30)
Citations to filings in this case or its record — appendices, docket entries, pleadings. These aren't published authority, so we don't retrieve or verify them. They're listed here so every citation in the brief is accounted for.
Proposed Am. Compl. ¶ 112
party filing
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- the heating elements include sensors that detect temperature and provide feedback to the heating element control,
- set up to five individual schedules per diffuser
- set up to five individual schedules per diffuser
Dkt. 13
docket filing
not verified
Dkt. 1
docket filing
not verified
Dkt. 16
docket filing
not verified
Dkt. 17
docket filing
not verified
Dkt. 25
docket filing
not verified
See Proposed Am. Compl. ¶ 119
party filing
not verified
Dkt. No. 25-1, ¶ 148
docket filing
not verified
Proposed Am. Compl. ¶ 163
party filing
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- [o]n information and belief, Knight materially breached the Knight IC Agreement by (among other things): (a) Disclosing Pura's confidential information to Atmos; and (b) Using Pura's confidential information to develop products for Atmos that directly compete with Pura's products.
Compl. ¶ 117
party filing
not verified
Proposed Am. Compl. ¶¶ 43-44
party filing
not verified
Dkt. 25-2
docket filing
not verified
Proposed Am. Compl. ¶ 29-but
party filing
not verified
Proposed Am. Compl. ¶ 44
party filing
not verified
Proposed Am. Compl. ¶ 43
party filing
not verified
See Proposed Am. Compl. ¶¶ 170-173
party filing
not verified
Proposed Am. Compl. ¶ 29
party filing
not verified
Proposed Am. Compl. ¶ 26
party filing
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- co-founder
Proposed Am. Compl. ¶ 170
party filing
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- Investor Individuals.
- The Investor Individuals ha[d]access to Pura's confidential and trade secret information through their involvement with Pura's investors
Proposed Am. Compl. ¶ 162
party filing
not verified
Proposed Am. Compl. ¶¶ 167-168
party filing
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- confidential financial and customer data stored in Pura's Shopify platform,
- information regarding Pura's marketing strategies,
Proposed Am. Compl. ¶ 66
party filing
not verified
Proposed Am. Compl. ¶ 174
party filing
not verified
Proposed Am. Compl. ¶ 114
party filing
not verified
Proposed Am. Compl. ¶ 80
party filing
not verified
Patent. Proposed Am. Compl. ¶¶ 149-151
party filing
not verified
Proposed Am. Compl. ¶ 149
party filing
not verified
Proposed Am. Compl. ¶ 150
party filing
not verified
Proposed Am. Compl. ¶ 104
party filing
not verified
Footnote 1
footnote
not verified