Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
42 results for '* judge:"District Judge Williams"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2023-12-25
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-cv-1387-GBW
Predecessor patents' disclaimer of scope did not restrict priority patent, which was broader in scope and whose language expressly contemplated the previously disavowed scope.
Publication Date: 2023-12-11
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael F. McTaggart, U.S. Attorney's Office, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Eleni Kousoulis, Janet Bateman, Public Federal Defender's Office, Wilmington, DE for defendant.
Case Number: 23-004
Possession of firearm by felon statute was constitutional as applied to defendant previously convicted of drug distribution offenses, as it was consistent with the historical tradition of disarming individuals who posed a threat to public safety, while defendant lacked standing to challenge the statute's constitutionality as he was ineligible to possess firearms on state probation.
Publication Date: 2023-12-04
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Entertainment and Leisure | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 15-611-GBW
Court granted leave to supplement damages expert report where, although supplementation would cause defendants to incur additional discovery expenses, there would be no delay of trial and the report was critical to plaintiff's ability to prove damages at trial.
Publication Date: 2023-10-23
Practice Area: Personal Injury
Industry: Financial Services and Banking
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: David Q. Webb, pro se plaintiff.
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-670-GBW
The court dismissed plaintiff's second amended complaint for failure to state a claim under the screening provision where he essentially asserted identical allegations as in the amended complaint and had therefore failed to remedy the deficiencies outlined by the court.
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.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Gary L. Brown
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
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.
Publication Date: 2023-10-02
Practice Area: Bankruptcy
Industry: Manufacturing
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Susan E. Kaufman, Law Office of Susan E. Kaufman, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Nathan Kilbert, Assistant General Counsel, United Steel Workers, Pittsburgh, PA; Richard M. Seltzer, Melissa S. Woods, Sommer Omar, Cohen, Weiss and Simon LLP, New York, NY for appellant.
for defendant: B. Nelson Sproat, Blank Rome LLP, Wilmington, DE; Andrew Herman, John Lucian, Blank Rome LLP, Philadelphia, PA for appellee.
Case Number: 22-10252 (JTD)
Relying on the general principle that, notwithstanding a bankruptcy court's authority to extinguish liabilities incurred prior to the sale of the debtor's assets, the court cannot insulate a purchaser from liability for claims arising after the sale due to the purchaser's conduct, the court concluded that appellee's status as a successor to debtor's business was determined by its post-sale conduct in hiring a majority of its workforce from the predecessor and maintaining substantial continuity in business operations.
Publication Date: 2023-10-02
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: John W. Shaw, Karen E. Keller, Nathan R. Hoeschen, Shaw Keller LLP, Wilmington, DE; Robert Frederickson III, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA; Alexandra D. Valenti, Jenevieve N. Nutovits, Goodwin Procter LLP, New York, NY; Alison Siedor, Goodwin Procter LLP, Washington, D.C. for plaintiff.
for defendant: Francis DiGiovanni, Thatcher A. Rahmeier, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael E. Zeliger, Ranjini Acharya, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Palo Alto, CA; Evan Finkel, Michael S. Horikawa, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendants.
Case Number: 22-1545-GBW
Court dismissed patent infringement case due to patents being directed to an ineligible abstract idea of using mathematical processes to optimize event schedules, where the patent did not specify new devices or technologies but instead relied upon generic computers and machine learning algorithms.
Publication Date: 2023-07-24
Practice Area: Commercial Law
Industry: Financial Services and Banking
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ryan M. Ernst, David M. Klauder, Bielli & Klauder, LLC, Wilmington, DE for appellant.
for defendant: Ricardo Palacio, Ashby & Geddes, P.A., Wilmington, DE for appellee.
Case Number: 19-10598 (BLS)
Finding that appellant creditor's claims sounded in tort rather than contract, the court determined that Pennsylvania's Uniform Commercial Code applied and required that for commercial tort claims, in order to be enforceable, a security agreement must provide a specific description of the collateral.
Publication Date: 2023-07-17
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Amy M. Dudash, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE; Amanda S. Williamson, Christopher J. Betti, Krista L. Venegas, Maria E. Doukas, Zachary Miller, Guylaine Hache, Michael T. Sikora, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Chicago, IL; Eric Kraeutler, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for plaintiff.
for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Megan E. Dellinger, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Charles E. Lipsey, J. Derek , Ryan P. O'Quinn, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Reston, VA; William B. Raich, Michael J. Flibbert, Yoonhee Kim, Yoonjin Lee, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Alissa K. Lipton, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Boston, MA for defendant.
Case Number: 21-1015-GBW
Claim that patent terms were indefinite due to being susceptible to multiple meanings for a POSA rejected where the scientific evidence demonstrated that a POSA would only understand the term as having one meaning, and where defendant attempted to incorporate limiting language not supported by the intrinsic record.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read