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: 2022-10-25
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-cv-131-GBW
The court denied a motion for default judgment on the basis that plaintiffs did not adequately plead patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(a). The court noted that plaintiff's complaint was at best described as "sparse" and did not establish that defendant made, used, or sold the accused instrumentalities in the United States
Publication Date: 2022-10-18
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Biotechnology
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Daniel M. Silver, Alexandra M. Joyce, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Leigh J. Martinson, Keith Toms, Jill Mello, Ph.D., Wyley S. Proctor, McCarter & English, LLP, Boston, MA; Michael A. Albert, Eric J. Rutt, Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C., Boston, MA; Edward R. Reines, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Redwood Shores, CA for plaintiffs.
for defendant: David E. Moore, Bindu A. Palapura, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; David Bilsker, Andrew Naravage, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, San Francisco, CA; Anne Toker, James E. Baker, Anastasia M. Fernands, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, New York, NY; Jeffrey C. Wu, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Salt Lake City, UT for defendants.
Case Number: 18-1019 (MN)
Renewed judgment as a matter of law in patent infringement case denied where jury heard sufficient evidence to support a finding that defendants' products satisfied the construed or plain meanings of the claim limitations of the patents-in-suit, and where defendants admitted to knowledge of the patents and the potential for infringement.
Publication Date: 2022-10-11
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Software | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Bibas
Attorneys: For plaintiff: David W. deBruin, Napoli Shkolnik, LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Jeremy D. Anderson, Fish & Richardson P.C., Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: 20-cv-1697-SB
Plaintiff plausibly alleged breach of contract where parties' statement of work required defendant to deliver functional prototypes of mobile applications, and there was no evidence defendant ever delivered a functional prototype.
Publication Date: 2022-10-11
Practice Area: Copyrights
Industry: Retail | Software
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Bibas
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Douglas Daniel Herrmann, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, Wilmington, DE; Ben L. Wagner, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, San Diego, CA; Lindsay Mitchell Henner, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, Atlanta, GA; Howard Wisnia, Wisnia PC, San Diego, CA for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Martina Tyreus Hufnal, Fish & Richardson P.C., Wilmington, DE; Kristen McCallion, Vivian Cheng, Fish & Richardson P.C., New York, NY for defendant.
Case Number: 1:21-cv-01376-SB
Court declined to dismiss copyright infringement claim arising from alleged copying of the computer code for plaintiff's online program where plaintiff plausibly alleged that defendant copied the code to reverse engineer its own version of the program.
Publication Date: 2022-10-11
Practice Area: Antitrust
Industry: Federal Government | Food and Beverage
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Laura Hatcher, Shamoor Anis, United States Attorney’s Office, Wilmington, DE; Brian Hanna, Jonathan Y. Mincer, Jenigh Garrett, Jill Ptacek, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC for plaintiff.
for defendant: Jack Blumenfeld, Brian Egan, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Lawrence Buterman, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY; Amanda Reeves, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC; Elyse M. Greenwald, Latham & Watkins LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Daniel K. Hogan, Daniel C. Kerrick, Hogan McDaniel, Wilmington, DE; Peter J. Schwingler, Stinson LLP, Minneapolis, MN; Kelly E. Farnan, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Amanda L. Wait, Vic Domen, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Washington, DC; Darryl Wade Anderson, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Houston, TX; Christine A. Varney, David R. Marriott, Peter T. Parbur, Timothy G. Cameron, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: 21-1644 (MN)
Court denied a request by plaintiff to enjoin an acquisition of a sugar company the Government argued would result in a monopoly of the sugar market in the southeastern United States. The court reviewed evidence from trial noting that the markets for industrial consumers were different from retail consumers, thus broadening the base and the market. The court further found that plaintiff's argument was undermined by the fact that they control the sugar supply within the United States.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: HON. ELIOT D. PRESCOTT, JULIE A. LAVOIE
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2022-10-11
Practice Area: Constitutional Law
Industry: Consumer Products | State and Local Government
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Bradley P. Lehman, Gellert Scali Busenkell & Brown LLC, Wilmington, DE; Edward Paltzik, Joshpe Mooney Paltzik LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Patricia A. Davis, Kenneth L. Wan, Andrew R. Fletcher, Deputy Attorneys General, State of Delaware, Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE for defendant.
Case Number: 21-1523 (MN)
Plaintiffs were granted preliminary injunctive relief on state criminal laws that prohibited the manufacture and possession of unserialized firearms and firearm components when such firearms and components were lawfully acquired and manufactured by individuals, as such restrictions violated Second Amendment rights.
Publication Date: 2022-10-04
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: E-Commerce
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Lynette M. Walley, New Castle, DE, pro se plaintiff.
for defendant: Jody Barillare, Ann Marie Effingham, Emily C. DeSmedt, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant.
Case Number: 21-1498-GBW
Americans with Disabilities Act discrimination and failure to accommodate claims dismissed where plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to support a prima facie case and had improperly pled ADA claims against persons in their individual capacity.
Publication Date: 2022-10-04
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Connolly
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Steven J. Balick, Andrew C. Mayo, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; James B. Monroe, Jennifer H. Roscetti, Charles T. Collins-Chase, Lauren J. Dowty, Meredith H. Boerschlein, Ryan V. McDonnell, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC; Jack B. Blumenfeld, Karen A. Jacobs, Jennifer Ying, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Benjamin J. Schladweiler, Samuel L. Moultrie, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Aaron F. Barkoff, Alejandro Menchaca, Rajendra A. Chiplunkar, Ben J. Mahon, Ashley M. Ratycz, McAndrews, Held & Malloy, LTD., Chicago, IL for defendant.
Case Number: 18-304-CFC-CJB
Court found for defendants in part in a case claiming patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271e(2)(A) for a new patent application for medication to treat partial-onset epileptic seizures.
Publication Date: 2022-10-04
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Stark
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Myron Gibbs, pro se petitioner.
for defendant: Matthew C. Bloom, Deputy Attorney General, Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE for respondents.
Case Number: 18-1756-LPS
Habeas petition dismissed as untimely where the one-year limitations period, as tolled by petitioner's state post-conviction motion, ran out prior to the filing of the petition, and there was no basis to equitably toll the limitations period.
Publication Date: 2022-10-04
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Connolly
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jack Enic Clark, Louisa, VA, pro se petitioner
for defendant: David C. Weiss, United States Attorney, and Dylan J. Steinberg, Assistant United States Attorney, Wilmington, DE for defendant.
Case Number: 21-1462-CFC
Petition for habeas relief dismissed where petitioner filed the petition in the wrong district court and failed to name the correct respondent.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read