• Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Shibuya Hoppman Corp.

    Publication Date: 2023-03-28
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Food and Beverage | Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Connolly
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Timothy Devlin, Peter A. Mazur, Devlin Law Firm LLC, Wilmington, DE; W. Cook Alciati, Chad E. Ziegler, Gardella Grace, P.A., Washington, DC; Olivia E. Marbutt, Kent & Risley LLC, Alpharetta, GA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: John W. Shaw, Karen E. Keller, Nathan R. Hoeschen, Shaw Keller LLP, Wilmington, DE; J.C. Rozendaal, Byron L. Pickard, Michael E. Joffre, Anna G. Phillips, William H. Milliken, Robert E. Niemeier, Deirdre M. Wells, Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC, Washington, DC; Jean Paul Y. Nagashima, Frost Brown Todd LLC, Washington, DC for defendants.

    Case Number: D70174

    Court granted judgment as a matter of law as to noninfringement of patents where a plain reading of the patent limitations meant that the accused products were not substantially similar to the described invention and therefore could not infringe under the doctrine of equivalents.

  • Talley v. Gen. Motors, LLC

    Publication Date: 2023-03-28
    Practice Area: Consumer Protection
    Industry: Automotive | Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Bibas
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Russell D. Paul, Amey J. Park, Abigail J. Gertner, Berger Montague PC, Philadelphia, PA; Kelly A. Green, Smith, Katzenstein, & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE; Tarek H. Zohdy, Cody R. Padgett, Laura E. Goolsby, Capstone Law APC, Los Angeles, CA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Jody C. Barillare, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE; Oderah C. Nwaeze, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Christine W. Chen, Crystal Nix-Hines, Shon Morgan, Meredith R. Mandell, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendant.

    Case Number: D70179

    Court declined to certify interlocutory appeal of dismissal of certain claims where an appeal would not materially advance litigation of the surviving claims and continued litigation would uncover evidence relevant to the dismissed claims.

  • BearBox LLC v. Lancium LLC

    Publication Date: 2023-03-21
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: E-Commerce | Electronics | Software
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Williams
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Andrew C. Mayo, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Benjamin T. Horton, John R. Labbe, Raymond R. Ricordati III, Chelsea M. Murray, Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP, Chicago, IL for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Chad. S.C. Stover, Mark C. Nelson, Darrick J. Hooker, Adam M. Kaufmann, Dana Amato Sarros, David M. Lisch, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.

    Case Number: 21-534-GBW

    Court declined to correct inventorship of patent where plaintiffs could not show that they had conceived of various claims in the patent and had not communicated other claims to defendants before defendants had independently conceived of those claims and reduced them to practice.

  • Stokes v. Markel Am. Ins. Co.

    Publication Date: 2023-03-21
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
    Industry: Insurance
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Bibas
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael B. Mccauley, Daniel H. Wooster, Palmer, Biezup & Henderson, Wilmington, DE; David A. Neblett, James M. Mahaffey, John A. Wynn, Perry & Neblett, Miami, FL for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Daryll Hawthorne-Bernardo, Timothy S. Martin, White & Williams, Wilmington, DE; Krista Acuna, Hamilton, Miller & Birthisel, Miami, FL for defendant.

    Case Number: 1:19-cv-02014-SB-MPT

    The court granted a motion to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiff insured failed to set forth feasible claims sounding in breach of contract and conversion in a matter arising out of defendant's refusal to completely cover the loss of plaintiff's speedboat.

  • Exeltis USA Inc. v. Lupin Ltd.

    Publication Date: 2023-03-21
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Martina T. Hufnal, Douglas E. McCann, Gregory R. Booker, Fish & Richardson P.C., Wilmington, DE; Brian Coggio, Fish & Richardson P.C., New York, NY; Megan A. Chacon, Bernard Cryan, Fish & Richardson P.C., San Diego, CA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: John C. Phillips, Jr., David A. Bilson, Phillips Mclaughlin & Hall, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Michael Nutter, McGuireWoods LLP, Chicago, IL; Merritt Westcott, McGuireWoods LLP, Houston, TX; Corinne S. Hockman, McGuireWoods LLP, Raleigh, NC for defendants.

    Case Number: 22-434-RGA

    Patentees created their own definition for the term "about," but defined it in such a way as to make the term indefinite since it effectively created an unbounded value range for the claim.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    New York Employment Law 2023

    Authors: Daniel A. Cohen, Joshua Feinstein

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Zephyr Fluid Solutions, LLC v. Scholle IPN Packaging, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-03-07
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Food and Beverage
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Fallon
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-cv-00475-SRF

    Court granted plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration where the mere filing of a complaint, without any further litigation, did not constitute a waiver of the contractual right to compel arbitration, and the parties' agreement included a no-waiver clause.

  • InQuisient Inc. v. ServiceNow, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-03-07
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: E-Commerce | Software
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Burke
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Susan E. Morrison, Fish & Richardson P.C., Wilmington, DE; Frank E. Scherkenbach, Adam Kessel, Andrew Pearson, Fish & Richardson P.C., Boston, MA; Jason W. Wolff, Fish & Richardson P.C., San Diego, CA; Excylyn Hardin-Smith, Fish & Richardson P.C., New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Jennifer Ying, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Kevin P.B. Johnson, Diane M. Doolittle, Ray Zado, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Redwood Shores, CA; Marissa R. Ducca, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Jodie Cheng, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, San Francisco, CA for defendant.

    Case Number: 22-900-CJB

    Court declined to dismiss patent infringement case at pleadings stage due to lack of patent-eligible subject matter where patent claims appeared to describe new method of electronic data management solving existing problems of flexibility and portability between databases, which constituted an inventive concept beyond the abstract idea of managing data.

  • Persawvere v. Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp.

    Publication Date: 2023-03-07
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Consumer Products | Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Williams
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kelly Allenspach Del Dotto, Susan E. Morrison, Fish & Richardson P.C., Wilmington, DE; Kurt L. Glitzenstein, Jacob B. Pecht, Fish & Richardson P.C., Boston, MA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Amy M. Dudash, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jason C. White, Scott D. Sherwin, Maria E. Doukas, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Chicago, IL for defendant.

    Case Number: 21-400-GBW

    Court declined to adopt limited construction of patent terms based on prosecution history where inventor had merely clarified patent to distinguish invention from prior art.

  • Davis v. Spicer

    Publication Date: 2023-03-07
    Practice Area: Civil Rights
    Industry:
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Fallon
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-874-SRF

    Court declined motion in limine to exclude evidence of plaintiff's physical injuries and emotional distress, as such evidence was necessary for plaintiff to recover damages for emotional distress in his §1983 case.

  • BearBox LLC v. Lancium LLC

    Publication Date: 2023-02-28
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Software | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Williams
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Andrew C. Mayo, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Benjamin T. Horton, John R. Labbe, Raymond R. Ricordati III, Chelsea M. Murray, Marshall, Gerstein & Borun, LLP, Chicago, IL for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Chad S.C. Stover, Mark C. Nelson, Darrick J. Hooker, Adam M. Kaufmann, Dana Amato Sarros, David M. Lisch, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.

    Case Number: 21-534-GBW

    Conversion claim was preempted by federal patent law where relief on the claim would be predicated on resolution of the dispute over ownership of the technology disclosed in the patent-in-suit.