Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
2,437 results for '* court:"COURT OF DELAWARE"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
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.
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.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Trey Cox, Jason Dennis
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
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.
Publication Date: 2023-06-06
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Bibas
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Jeremy A. Tigan, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Andrew J. Cochran, Gerald J. Flattman, Jr., Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Megan C. Haney, John C. Phillips, Jr., Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Adrianne C. Rose, Joseph T. Jaros, Natasha L. White, William A. Rakoczy, Rakoczy Molino Mazzochi Siwik LLP, Chicago, IL for defendants.
Case Number: 21-cv-1710-SB
Court could clarify claim constructions from prior litigation involving the same patents-in-suit even if patentee acted as its own lexicographer, but only narrow clarification was necessary for one of the disputed terms.
Publication Date: 2023-06-06
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Legal Services
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Connolly
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jimmy C. Chong, Chong Law Firm, PA, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Benjamin J. Schladweiler, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Andrew R. Sommer, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, McLean, VA for defendant.
Case Number: 22-418-CFC
Court possessed inherent authority to investigate plaintiff's possible efforts to defraud the court even after plaintiff voluntarily moved to dismiss its lawsuit.
Publication Date: 2023-05-23
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Manufacturing
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Patricia S. Rogowski, Rogowski Law, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Robert M. Evans, Jr., Michael J. Hartley, Michael H. Durbin, T. Hunter Brown, Lewis Rice, LLP, St. Louis, MO for plaintiff.
for defendant: Brian A. Biggs, Angela C. Whitesell, Erin E. Larson, DLA Piper, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Larissa S. Bifano, DLA Piper, LLP, Boston, MA; Richard Mulloy, DLA PIper, LLP, San Diego, CA; Zachary Loney, DLA PIper, LLP, Austin, TX for defendant.
Case Number: 18-cv-1259-RGA
Patent infringement claims were dismissed where asserted claims consisted solely of abstract ideas integral to the voting process and contained no new inventive concept.
Publication Date: 2023-05-23
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Software
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Connolly
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Andrew S. Curfman, Howard Wemow, Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA, Canton, OH for plaintiff.
for defendant: Jimmy C. Chong, Chong Law Firm, PA, Wilmington, DE
Case Number: 22-244-CFC
Court possessed inherent authority to demand production of documents that might evidence potential fraud committed upon the court even though plaintiff had moved to voluntarily dismiss the case.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read