Opinion ID: 1429662
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Factual Allegations For the Purpose of Reviewing Motions to Dismiss

Text: Avon's contention that DermaNew's allegations of threats of an infringement suit are false is not relevant at this stage in the litigation. Although both parties submitted declarations in connection with the motion to dismiss, because no evidentiary hearing was held we must accept DermaNew's version of events as true for the purposes of establishing jurisdiction and surviving a 12(b)(1) motion. McLachlan, 261 F.3d at 909; see also Mattel, Inc. v. Greiner and Hausser GmbH, 354 F.3d 857, 862 (9th Cir.2003) (noting that to establish the jurisdiction necessary to withstand a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, conflicts between the facts contained in declarations submitted by the two sides must be resolved in the plaintiff's favor). In other words, the question presented is whether DermaNew's FAC is, on its face, sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss, not whether the alleged facts will ultimately prove accurate. Therefore, when determining whether the district court erred in dismissing the complaint, we must take DermaNew's allegations as true. These allegations describe concrete threats of an infringement lawsuit that easily establish a case or controversy. Cf. Bausch & Lomb, 39 F.Supp.2d at 273-74 (holding allegations insufficient to confer jurisdiction where the purported threats were nothing more than unattributed `rumors').