Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
2,431 results for '* court:"COURT OF DELAWARE"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2023-06-20
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Burke
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kelly E. Farnan, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Mark Boland, Raja Saliba, Michael R. Dzwonczyk, Chidambaram S. Iyer, Sughrue Mion, PLLC for plaintiff.
for defendant: Carl D. Neff, FisherBroyles, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Ryan T. Beard, FisherBroyles, LLP, Austin, TX; Christopher R. Kinkade, FisherBroyles, LLP, Princeton, NJ for defendant.
Case Number: 21-1821-CJB
Patent claims described a sufficiently narrower invention than the abstract idea of file synchronization to constitute an arguable improvement in computer technology and an inventive concept.
Publication Date: 2023-06-20
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Electronics | Manufacturing | Software
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Burke
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Philip A. Rovner, Jonathan A. Choa, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Paul J. Andre, Lisa Kobialka, James Hannah, Timothy Layden, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Menlo Park, CA; Aaron M. Frankel, Cristina Martinez, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Karen Jacobs, Cameron P. Clark, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Kristin L. Cleveland, Mark W. Wilson, Salumeh R. Loesch, John D. Vandenberg, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, Portland, OR; Kristina R. Cary, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Boston, MA; Gregg F. LoCascio, P.C., Michael A. Pearson, Jr., Matthew J. McIntee, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, D.C.; Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Clement Naples, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY; Gabriel K. Bell, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, D.C.; Thomas W. Yeh, Latham & Watkins LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Daniel S. Todd, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA for defendants.
Case Number: 22-151-CJB
Patent did not claim ineligible subject matter where it recited an inventive concept that improved upon the prior art by claiming to solve limitations of previous systems through a specific procedure.
Publication Date: 2023-06-20
Practice Area: Administrative Law
Industry: Federal Government
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen A. Hampton, Grady & Hampton, Dover, DE; David F. Chermol, Chermol & Fishman, LLC, Philadelphia, PA for plaintiff.
for defendant: David C. Weiss, United States Attorney, Brian C. O’Donnell, Associate General Counsel, Evelyn Rose Marie Protano, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration, Baltimore, MD for defendant.
Case Number: 22-86 (MN) (JLH)
Sufficient evidence supported ALJ's determination that plaintiff's combination of medical conditions did not impair him from performing light work that existed in substantial numbers in the national economy, such that plaintiff had residual functional capacity and was not disabled for purposes of SSI.
Publication Date: 2023-06-13
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: E-Commerce
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: David Ellis Moore, Bindu Ann George Palapura, Andrew L. Brown, Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP, Wilmington, DE; John M. Desmarais, Karim Z. Oussayef, Jonas R. McDavit, Jordon N. Malz, Brian D. Matty, Edward Geist, Jun Tong, Eliyahu Balsam, Amy I. Wann, William Vieth, William N. Yau, Benjamin Rodd, Michael Wueste, Lindsey E. Miller, Desmaris LLP, New York, NY; Michael Rhodes, Kyle Curry, Desmaris LLP, San Francisco, CA for plaintiff.
for defendant: Benjamin J. Schladweiler, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Joshua L. Raskin, Allan A. Kassenoff, Julie P. Bookbinder, Jade Li-Yu Chen, Jonathan Presveli, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, New York, NY; Maja Sherman, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Chicago, IL for defendants.
Case Number: 21-461-GBW
Court rejected claims of indefiniteness of patent terms where the specification and prosecution history demonstrated that the terms would be sufficient to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of the invention or the means-plus-function limitation.
Publication Date: 2023-06-13
Practice Area: Bankruptcy
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | E-Commerce | Federal Government
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Connolly
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ramona D. Elliot, P. Matthew Sutko, Frederick Gaston Hall, Sumi K. Sakata, Department of Justice, Executive Office for United States Trustees, Washington, DC; Andrew R. Vara, Joseph J. McMahon, Jr., Benjamin A. Hackman, Juliet M. Sarkessian, Department of Justice, Office of the United States Trustee, Wilmington, DE for appellant.
for defendant: Adam G. Landis, Kimberly A. Brown, Matthew R. Pierce, Landis Rath & Cobb LLP, Wilmington, DE; Andrew G. Dietderich, James L. Bromley, Brian D. Glueckstein, Alexa J. Kranzley, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, NY for appellees.
Case Number: 22-11068 (JTD)
District court was required to certify appeal of bankruptcy court order directly to the court of appeals where the order involved a purely question of law for which there was no controlling decision from the circuit court or Supreme Court.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors:
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2023-06-13
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Health Care | Manufacturing
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen J. Kraftschik, Polsinelli PC, Wilmington, DE; Thomas Gemmell, Polsinelli PC, Chicago, IL; Darren E. Donnelly, Polsinelli LLP, San Francisco, CA; Aaron M. Levine, Polsinelli PC, Houston, TX for plaintiff.
for defendant: Daniel M. Silver, Alexandra M. Joyce, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Colin G. Cabral, James R. Anderson, Proskauer Rose LLP, Boston, MA; Jessica M. Griffith, Proskauer Rose LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendant.
Case Number: 21-53-RGA
Court declined to adopt plaintiff's proposal to construe disputed patent term by its plain and ordinary meaning, where the definition advanced by plaintiff was merely functional in nature and there was no evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the meaning of the disputed term.
Publication Date: 2023-06-13
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Manufacturing
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Thad. J. Bracegirdle, Andrea S. Brooks, Wilks, Lukoff & Bracegirdle LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Jeffrey L. Moyer, Travis S. Hunter, Arun J. Mohan, Richards Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendant.
Case Number: 21-323 (MN)
Disputed patent terms were not indefinite because a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand their plain and ordinary meaning and how the terms performed the function of the claimed invention.
Publication Date: 2023-06-06
Practice Area: Securities Litigation
Industry: E-Commerce
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Fallon
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-1164-CFC-SRF
Court granted motion for leave to amend securities complaint where no scheduling order had been entered in the case and no defendant had raised a claim that amendment would result in undue prejudice.
Publication Date: 2023-06-06
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Daniel M. Silver, Alexandra M. Joyce, Fish & Richardson P.C.; Jane M. Love, Ph.D., Robert Trenchard, Andrew P. Blythe, Christine L. Ranney, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP for plaintiff.
for defendant: Stamatios Stamoulis, Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC; Mieke K. Malmberg, Paul J. Skiermont, Sarah E. Spires, Steven J. Udick, Kevin P. Potere, Skiermont Derby LLP for defendant.
Case Number: 20-133-GBW
Court declined defendants' more limited proposed claim constructions that included negative limitations which had no basis in the intrinsic record.
Publication Date: 2023-06-06
Practice Area: Trademarks
Industry: Construction | Retail
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Thomas H. Kramer, Anthony N. Delcollo, Offit Kurman, P.A., Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: John C. Andrade, Elio Battista, Jr., Kyle F. Dunkle, Parkowski, Guerke & Swayze, P.A., Dover, DE for defendant.
Case Number: 21 -1258-RGA
Geographically descriptive mark was not protectable where lack of advertising, limited customer base, and lack of evidence of consumer confusion demonstrated that the mark had not acquired a secondary meaning.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read