Filter This View

  • Martin v. State of Delaware

    Publication Date: 2023-10-23
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge LeGrow
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Benjamin S. Gifford, IV, The Law Office of Benjamin S. Gifford IV, Wilmington, DE for appellant.
    for defendant: Brian L. Arban, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE for appellee.
    Case Number: 112, 2021

    The Delaware Supreme Court held that a postconviction petition will not be mooted by a defendant's completion of his sentence after the petition is filed if the defendant pleads that there are continuing collateral consequences arising from the conviction.

  • Harris-Williams v. Am. Freight Outlet Stores, LLC

    Publication Date: 2023-10-23
    Practice Area: Premises Liability
    Industry: Retail
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Fallon
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael P. Minuti, McCann Dillon Jaffe & Lamb, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Gardenia L. Brooman, Verlin & Brooman, LLC, Bala Cynwyd, PA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: William R. Adams, Dickie McCamey & Chilcote, Wilmington, DE; Sean T. Stadelman, Stephen A. Sheinen, Goldberg Segalla LLP, Philadelphia, PA for defendants.
    Case Number: 22-76-SRF

    Injured decedent's interrogatory responses were admissible under the residual hearsay exception as they were sufficiently trustworthy due to being made under penalty of perjury and were corroborated by other evidence.

  • Emerson Radio Corp. v. Emerson Quiet Kool Co. LTD

    Publication Date: 2023-10-16
    Practice Area: Trademarks
    Industry: Electronics | Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Williams
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stacey A. Scrivani, Stevens & Lee, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Mark H. Anania, Stevens & Lee, P.C., Lawrenceville, NJ; Bobby Ghajar, Cooley LLP, Santa Monica, CA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Timothy Devlin, Clifford Chad Henson, Devlin Law Firm LLC, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
    Case Number: 20-1652-GBW

    Finding that defendants had intentionally misled buyers and had made false representations about defendants' association with plaintiff, and that defendants had engaged in a pattern of delay and lack of representation, the court concluded that the case was exceptional both on the merits and because of the unreasonable manner in which defendants had litigated the case.

  • Gemedy Inc. v. The Carlyle Group Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-10-16
    Practice Area: Intellectual Property
    Industry: E-Commerce | Investments and Investment Advisory | Software
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Connolly
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Comrie Barr Flinn, Alberto E. Chavez, Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, DE; Mark L. D. Wawro, Max L. Tribble, Susman Godfrey, LLP, Houston, TX; Tamar Lusztig, Susman Godfrey, LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Alexandra M. Cumings, Ryan D. Stottmann, William M. Lafferty, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael B. Carlinsky, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY; Kevin P.B. Johnson, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Redwood Shores, CA; Patrick D. Curran, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Boston, MA for defendants.
    Case Number: 23-157-CFC

    Defendants could remove case under federal officer removal statute by alleging that it had acquired the right to use plaintiff's intellectual property via federal government contracts after the government allegedly obtained "unlimited right" to the intellectual property.

  • Validity, Inc. v. Project Bordeaux, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-10-09
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: E-Commerce | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Fallon
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 23-365-SRF

    Court dismissed patent infringement claim after finding patent was directed to ineligible subject matter where patent merely involved abstract processes capable of being performed by a human or with the assistance of generic technological components.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Lancaster County & Berks County Court Rules 2023

    Authors:

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Thomson Reuters Enter. Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-10-09
    Practice Area: Intellectual Property
    Industry: E-Commerce | Legal Services | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Bibas
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Michael J. Flynn, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Dale M. Cendali, Eric A. Loverro, Joshua L. Simmons, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: David E. Moore, Bindu A. Palapura, Andrew L. Brown Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Gabriel M. Ramsey, Warrington Parker, Joachim B. Steinberg, Jacob Canter, Christopher J. Banks, Shira Liu, Margaux Poueymirou, Anna Z. Saber, Crowell & Moring LLP, San Francisco, CA; Mark A. Klapow, Crinesha B. Berry, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, D.C. for defendant.
    Case Number: 20-cv-613-SB

    Court excluded economic expert's testimony as unsupported by data and methodology where expert claimed there was little likelihood of a market for plaintiffs' product, since there were insufficient facts about the attributes of the product or whether there were current substitutes for the product already on market.

  • The Loan Servs. Inc. v. NEWITY LLC

    Publication Date: 2023-10-09
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Federal Government
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Williams
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joseph B. Cicero, Gregory E. Stuhlman, Thomas A. Youngman, Chipman Brown Cicero & Cole, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Casey B. Howard, Jeffery S. Kramer, Locke Lord LLP., New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Patricia L. Enerio, Gillian L. Andrews, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael R. Tein, Gaye L. Huxoll, Tein Malone PLLC, Coconut Grove, FL for defendants.
    Case Number: 22-cv-01255-GBW

    Dismissal of breach of contract claim denied where plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to support inference that defendant was the mere continuance or assignee of plaintiffs' contractual counterparty.

  • Light v. Davis

    Publication Date: 2023-10-09
    Practice Area: Government
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Burke
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: James G. McMillan, III, William E. Green, Jr., Halloran Farkas + Kittila LLP, Wilmington, DE; Mark C. Rifkin, Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Freeman & Herz LLP, New York, NY; Arthur Susman, Law Office of Arthur Susman, Chicago, IL for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Arthur G. Connolly, Max B. Walton, Christina M. Thompson, Lisa R. Hatfield, Connolly Gallagher LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
    Case Number: 22-611-CJB

    Concluding that a litigant does not have a cognizable property interest in abandoned property, the court dismissed plaintiff's complaint challenging the constitutionality of Delaware's Abandoned and Unclaimed Property Law. In addition, the court dismissed the complaint on ripeness grounds concluding that because the questions of whether plaintiff would actually make a claim on the property and be able to sufficiently demonstrate his ownership rights were unanswered, the parties' interests were not sufficiently adverse to give rise to

  • Deloitte Consulting LLP v. Sagitec Solutions LLC

    Publication Date: 2023-10-02
    Practice Area: Copyrights
    Industry: Consulting | Software
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Bryson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 23-325-WCB

    Court declined to stay civil suit pending related criminal action against defendant's former employees where the procedural posture of the criminal action meant any delay would likely be long, while there was the potential that factual overlap between the cases would be eliminated through dismissal of charges and any prejudice to defendant was limited to being unable to obtain evidence from its former employees.

  • Diaz v. FCA US LLC

    Publication Date: 2023-10-02
    Practice Area: Consumer Protection
    Industry: Automotive
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Wallach
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kelly A. Green, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Russell D. Paul, Amey J. Park, Abigail J. Gertner, Natalie Lesser, Berger Montague PC, Philadelphia, PA; Tarek H. Zohdy, Cody R. Padgett, Laura E. Goolsby, Capstone Law APC, Los Angeles, CA; Steven Calamusa, Geoffrey Stahl, Rachel Bentley, Gordon & Partners, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, FL for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Patrick M. Brannigan, Jessica L. Reno, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephen A. D’Aunoy, Thomas L. Azar, Scott H. Morgan, Thompson Coburn LLP, St. Louis, MO for defendant.
    Case Number: 21-cv-00906-EJW

    Vehicle purchasers' fraud claims against manufacturer failed where their evidence failed to permit an inference that the manufacturer had pre-sale knowledge of an alleged design or manufacturing defect in one of the vehicle's components, and where there was no allegation that the manufacturer knowingly concealed or misrepresented the alleged defect.