Eolas Technologies, Inc. v. Adobe Systems, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that “to the extent that a plaintiff has adequate legal remedies under theories of liability other than a claim of breach of an express contract, those remedies do not bar an unjust enrichment claim.”
• claims relating to defendant’s alleged false and misleading representations did not raise “particularly complicated issues that Congress has committed to a regulatory agency”
• on motion to dismiss stating that “[ajllegations that a plaintiff paid a premium for a product that the plaintiff would not have paid but for the maker’s misrepresentation are sufficient to allege economic injury and standing under the CLRA and UCL.”
• Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).