• Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. Echelon Fitness, LLC

    Publication Date: 2020-08-05
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael Flynn and Anthony D. Raucci, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Steven N. Feldman, Christina V. Rayburn, Karen Younkins, Kevin X. Wang and Maxwell K. Coll, Hueston Hennigan LLP, Los Angeles, CA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Benjamin J. Schladweiler, Douglas R. Weider and James L. Ryerson, Greenberg Traurig, Wilmington, DE and Florham Park, NJ for defendant.

    Case Number: D69058

    Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate that its patents involved an inventive concept, rather than an abstract idea.

  • Halosil Int'l Inc. v. Eco-Evolutions, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2020-07-29
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Distribution and Wholesale | Retail
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen B. Brauerman, Bayard P.A., Wilmington, DE; Kent E. Baldauf, Jr. and Barry J. Coyne , The Webb Law Firm, Pittsburgh, PA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Michael F. Duggan and Marc Sposato, Marks, O’Neill, O’Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Stephen H. Luther and Ryan T. Santurri, Allen, Dyer, Doppelt& Gilchrist, PA, Orlando, FL for defendants.

    Case Number: D69064

    Breach of contract claims were untimely where the claims accrued after plaintiff was put on notice defendant may have developed and patented a product based off plaintiff's product in breach of the parties' agreement.

  • Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. Echelon Fitness, LLC

    Publication Date: 2020-07-22
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael Flynn and Anthony D. Raucci, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Steven N. Feldman, Christina V. Rayburn, Karen Younkins, Kevin X. Wang and Maxwell K. Coll, Hueston Hennigan LLP, Los Angeles, CA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Benjamin J. Schladweiler, Douglas R. Weider and James L. Ryerson, Greenberg Traurig, Wilmington, DE and Florham Park, NJ for defendant.

    Case Number: D69058

    Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate that its patents involved an inventive concept, rather than an abstract idea.

  • Power Integrations, Inc. v. Silanna Semiconductor N. Am., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2020-07-22
    Practice Area: Business Torts
    Industry: Electronics | Recruitment and Staffing
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: John W. Shaw, Karen E. Keller and David M. Fry, Shaw Keller LLP, Wilmington, DE; David J. Miclean and Limin Zheng, Miclean Gleason LLP, San Mateo, CA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Philip A. Rovner and Jonathan A. Choa, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Micha Danzig and Paul M. Huston, Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo P.C., San Diego, CA for defendant.

    Case Number: D69059

    Plaintiff failed to state a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets, but the complaint adequately alleged claims for interference with contractual relations and with prospective economic advantage.

  • W.R. Berkley Corp. v. Dunai

    Publication Date: 2020-07-22
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Insurance
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Scott A. Holt and Curtis J. Crowther, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Daniel C. Herr, Law Office of Daniel C. Herr LLC, Wilmington, DE; Kristen Prinz and Amit Bindra, The Prinz Law Firm, P.C., Chicago, IL for defendant.

    Case Number: D69061

    The court denied defendant's motion to dismiss, because the record did not contain sufficient information to conduct a choice of law analysis.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Philadelphia County Court Rules 2024

    Authors:

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Keystone Assoc. LLC v. Fulton

    Publication Date: 2020-07-08
    Practice Area: Securities Litigation
    Industry:
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Noreika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Timothy R. Dudderar and Jonathan A. Choa, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; David J. Jordan and Michael R. Menssen, Stoel Rives LLP, Salt Lake City, UT for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Robert J. Katzenstein, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE; Steven S. Scholes and Peter B. Allport, McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Chicago, IL; John R. Gerstein, Clyde & Co. US LLP for defendants.

    Case Number: D69044

    Plaintiffs failed to adequately allege a misrepresentation or omission by defendants, so the court dismissed all claims for securities violations.

  • Nexon Am. Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC

    Publication Date: 2020-07-01
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: E-Commerce
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Connolly
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Phillip Rovner and Jonathan Choa, Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Allen Wang, David Hayes, Earl Mah, Charlene Morrow, Min Wu and Venessa Park-Thompson, Fenwick & West LLP, San Francisco, CA, Mountain View, CA and New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Brian Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; James Etheridge, Etheridge Law Group, Southlake, TX for defendants.

    Case Number: D69034

    The court had subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's declaratory judgment claims involving certain patents, but not for other patents that had been invalidated by another federal court.

  • f'real Foods, LLC v. Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2020-07-01
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Food and Beverage
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Connolly
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Rodger D. Smith II, Michael J. Flynn and Taylor Haga, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Guy W. Chambers and Peter Colosi, Sideman & Bancroft LLP, San Francisco for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Francis DiGiovanni, Thatcher A. Rahmeier, William S. Foster, Jr., Kenneth M. Vorrasi and Brianna L. Silverstein, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Wilmington, DE and Washington, DC for defendants.

    Case Number: D69037

    Plaintiffs failed to establish rental lost profits.

  • In re: Semcrude, L.P.

    Publication Date: 2020-07-01
    Practice Area: Bankruptcy
    Industry: Energy
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Connolly
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: William A. Hazeltine, Morris, Sullivan, Hazeltine Allison LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Don A. Beskrone and Stacy L. Newman, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE for defendant.

    Case Number: D69032

    Seller's warranty of good title free of liens and encumbrances to an initial purchaser served to waive seller's right to assert a lien against a subsequent purchaser from the initial purchaser.

  • Archer v. Defenders, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2020-07-01
    Practice Area: Labor Law
    Industry:
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian D. Long, Rigrodsky&Long, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Ted E. Trief, Shelly L. Friedland, EyalDror, Trief&Olk, New York, NY; Peter S. Pearlman, Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf LLP, Saddle Brook, NJ; Macy D. Hanson, The Law Office of Macy D. Hanson, PLLC, Madison, MS for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: J. Cory Falgowski, Burr & Forman LLP, Wilmington, DE; K. Bryance Metheny, Ronald W. Flowers, Jr., Martin E. Burke, H. Carlton Hilson, Burr & Forman LLP, Birmingham, AL for defendant.

    Case Number: D69030

    Court declined to dismiss opt-in plaintiffs from wage and hour collective action on grounds of judicial estoppel for those plaintiffs' failures to disclose their claims on their bankruptcy petition, where those plaintiffs either retained the opportunity to amend their bankruptcy petitions or where any inference of bad faith was not strong enough to warrant the sanction of dismissal.