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: 2020-01-08
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Connolly
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Philip A. Rovner and Jonathan A. Choa, Potter, Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; James H. Shalek, Baldassare Vinti, Nolan M. Goldber, and Fabio E. Tarud, Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld and Brian P. Egan, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; John Neukom and James Y. Pak, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Palo Alto, CA for defendant.
Case Number: D68831
Motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds pursuant to an exclusive forum selection agreement denied where it was not clear that plaintiffs would be able to assert their U.S. patent infringement claims in the required foreign court.
Publication Date: 2020-01-08
Practice Area: Civil Rights
Industry: Health Care | State and Local Government
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Connolly
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Dale Kevin McNeill, pro se plaintiff.
for defendant: Ryan Patrick Connell,Delaware Dep’t of Justice, Wilmington, DE for defendant Wesley. Dana Spring Monzo and Karine Sarkisian, White & Williams, Wilmington, DE for defendant Connections CSP Inc.
Case Number: D68834
An inmate failed to adequately state a claim for violations of his civil rights, because the record did not show any personal in-volvement by the warden or any unlawful policy by a health care provider.
Publication Date: 2020-01-08
Practice Area: Civil Rights
Industry: Health Care | State and Local Government
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Anibal Melendez, Smyrna, DE, pro se plaintiff.
for defendant: Dana Spring Monzo, White & Williams, Wilmington, DE for defendant Mills.
Case Number: D68835
An inmate's complaint for civil rights violations failed to state any personal involvement on the part of one defendant, so the court dismissed that claim and allowed plaintiff to amend.
Publication Date: 2020-01-01
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Aerospace | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Stark
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jody C. Barillare, Amy M. Dudash, Willard K. Tom, Jon R. Roellke, Ryan Kantor and Bradford A. Cangro, Morgan, Lewis & Boekius LLP, Wilmington, DE and Washington, DC; Kelly E. Farnan and Christine D. Haynes, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; David M. Farnum and Sherry X. Wu, Anova Law Group, PLLC, Sterling, VA for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Anne Shea Gaza, Robert M. Vrana and Samantha G. Wilson, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Tim-othy C. Bickham, John Caracappa, Jonathan B. Sallet, Scott M. Richey, Beau M. Goodrick, Andrew Xue and Michael Flynn-O’Brien, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Washington, DC and San Francisco, CA for defendants.
Case Number: D68828
In its claim construction ruling, the court rejected defendants' arguments regarding indefiniteness in this patent matter.
Publication Date: 2020-01-01
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Consumer Products | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Connolly
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian Farnan and Michael Farnan , Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jeffrey Bragalone, Jonathan Rastegar and T. William Ken-nedy, Bragalone Conroy P.C., Dallas, TX for plaintiff.
for defendant: Jack Blumenfeld and Jennifer Ying, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Cory Davis, Theresa Weisenberger, Daniel Goettle and Jennifer Kurcz, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Atlanta, GA, Philadelphia, PA and Chicago, IL for defendant.
Case Number: D68827
Plaintiff failed to provide fair notice of how defendant's accused products directly infringed on plaintiff's patents, and because the court concluded plaintiff did not adequately allege direct infringement, it could not recover for induced infringement either.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors:
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2020-01-01
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Electronics | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen B. Brauerman and Sara E. Bussiere, Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Mark S. Raskin, Robert A. Whitman, Michael S. De Vincenzo, John F. Petrsoric, and Andrea Pacelli, Mishcon De Reya New York LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld and Jennifer Ying, Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael Brody and Jonathan Retsky, Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL; David P. Enzminger, Winston & Strawn LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Krishnan Padmanabhan, Winston & Strawn LLP, New York, NY; James Lin, Winston & Strawn LLP, Menlo Park, CA for defendant.
Case Number: D68823
Expert opinion regarding written description and enablement excluded where the expert focused on the accused technologies and failed to analyze whether the specifications sufficiently described the patent claims.
Publication Date: 2020-01-01
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Connolly
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jeffrey A. Finucane, assistant United States attorney, Martinsburg, WV for plaintiff.
for defendant: N/A
Case Number: D68829
Where defendant filed multiple incoherent motions, the court ordered a psychological evaluation to determine defendant's competency.
Publication Date: 2019-12-25
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: David E. Moore, Bindu A. Palapura and Stephanie E. O’Byrne, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wil-mington, DE; Steven Yovits, Mark Scott, Clifford Katz and Malavika Rao, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Chicago, IL for plaintiff.
for defendant: Kelly E. Farnan, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Sten Jensen, Clement Seth Roberts and Alyssa Caridis, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Washington, DC, San Francisco, CA and Los Angeles, CA for defendant.
Case Number: D68817
Plaintiff's patents contained inventive concepts that were directed to address known issues, so they were not simply abstract ideas.
Publication Date: 2019-12-25
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Connolly
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Derek J. Fahnestock, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Errol B. Taylor, Fredrick, M. Zullow, Anna Brook, Jordan P. Markham, Kyanna Lewis, Nathaniel T. Browand and Venus Allahyarzadeh, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: John C. Phillips, Jr. and David A. Bilson, Phillips, Goldman, McCaughlin & Hall, P.A., Wilmington, DE; George C. Lombardi, Michael K. Nutter, Ivan M. Poullaos, John R. McNair and Nimalka R. Wickramasek-era, Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL and Los Angeles, CA for defendant.
Case Number: D68820
The court properly excluded evidence relating to prior litigation which involved a different pharmaceutical.
Publication Date: 2019-12-25
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Stark
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian E. Farnan and Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wimington, DE; Amir Alavi,, Demetrios Anaipakos, Alisa A. Lipski, Timothy Shelby, Scott W. Clark, Monica Uddin, Nathan Campbell, and Louis Liao, Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing, P.C., Houston, TX for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Frederick L. Cottrell and Jason J. Rawnsley, Richards, Layton & Finger, PA, Wilmington, DE; Gregory P. Stone, Eric P. Tuttle, Zachary M. Briers, Hannah Dubina, Ashley D. Kaplan and Peter A. Detre, Munger, Tolles & Olson, LLP, Los Angeles, CA and San Francisco, CA for defendants.
Case Number: D68816
Court ruled that a preamble term was limiting because it was essential to understand the remaining terms in the claim, and accepted defendant's proposed construction where the intrinsic evidence required construing the term as requiring a mathematical relationship.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read