Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
2,232 results for '* court:"DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2023-10-30
Practice Area: Litigation
Industry: Federal Government | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ronald G. Poliquin, The Poliquin Firm LLC, Dover, DE; Brian R. Della Rocca, Compass Law Partners, Rockville, MD for plaintiff.
for defendant: David J. Soldo, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE; Alison Schary, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Washington, DC; Hilary Oran, Katherine M. Bolger, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, New York, NY; Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, James G. Touhey, Jr., Director, Torts Branch, Stephen R. Terrell, Attorney, Torts Branch, United States Department Of Justice, Washington, DC; David J. Margules, Ballard Spahr LLP, Wilmington, DE, Lauren Russell, Ballard Spahr LLP, Washington, DC, Kaitlin M. Gurney, Ballard Spahr LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Bartholomew J. Dalton, Dalton & Associates, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Abbe David Lowell, Sanaya M. Tamboli, Winston & Strawn LLP, Washington, DC; David A. Kolansky, Winston & Strawn LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: 23-247 (MN)
Applying the four factors enumerated in Pioneer, the court determined that plaintiff's counsel's late filing of an opposition to a motion to dismiss due to his mis-reliance on the rules was not "excusable neglect" and denied his motion to reconsider the court's decision granting the motion to dismiss.
Publication Date: 2023-10-23
Practice Area: Premises Liability
Industry: Retail
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Fallon
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael P. Minuti, McCann Dillon Jaffe & Lamb, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Gardenia L. Brooman, Verlin & Brooman, LLC, Bala Cynwyd, PA for plaintiff.
for defendant: William R. Adams, Dickie McCamey & Chilcote, Wilmington, DE; Sean T. Stadelman, Stephen A. Sheinen, Goldberg Segalla LLP, Philadelphia, PA for defendants.
Case Number: 22-76-SRF
Injured decedent's interrogatory responses were admissible under the residual hearsay exception as they were sufficiently trustworthy due to being made under penalty of perjury and were corroborated by other evidence.
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: 2023-10-23
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge LeGrow
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Benjamin S. Gifford, IV, The Law Office of Benjamin S. Gifford IV, Wilmington, DE for appellant.
for defendant: Brian L. Arban, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE for appellee.
Case Number: 112, 2021
The Delaware Supreme Court held that a postconviction petition will not be mooted by a defendant's completion of his sentence after the petition is filed if the defendant pleads that there are continuing collateral consequences arising from the conviction.
Publication Date: 2023-10-16
Practice Area: Intellectual Property
Industry: E-Commerce | Investments and Investment Advisory | Software
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Connolly
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Comrie Barr Flinn, Alberto E. Chavez, Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, DE; Mark L. D. Wawro, Max L. Tribble, Susman Godfrey, LLP, Houston, TX; Tamar Lusztig, Susman Godfrey, LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Alexandra M. Cumings, Ryan D. Stottmann, William M. Lafferty, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael B. Carlinsky, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY; Kevin P.B. Johnson, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Redwood Shores, CA; Patrick D. Curran, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Boston, MA for defendants.
Case Number: 23-157-CFC
Defendants could remove case under federal officer removal statute by alleging that it had acquired the right to use plaintiff's intellectual property via federal government contracts after the government allegedly obtained "unlimited right" to the intellectual property.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: T. BART GARY, JAKE CARROLL
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
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.
Publication Date: 2023-10-09
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: E-Commerce | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Fallon
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 23-365-SRF
Court dismissed patent infringement claim after finding patent was directed to ineligible subject matter where patent merely involved abstract processes capable of being performed by a human or with the assistance of generic technological components.
Publication Date: 2023-10-09
Practice Area: Intellectual Property
Industry: E-Commerce | Legal Services | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Bibas
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Michael J. Flynn, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Dale M. Cendali, Eric A. Loverro, Joshua L. Simmons, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: David E. Moore, Bindu A. Palapura, Andrew L. Brown Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Gabriel M. Ramsey, Warrington Parker, Joachim B. Steinberg, Jacob Canter, Christopher J. Banks, Shira Liu, Margaux Poueymirou, Anna Z. Saber, Crowell & Moring LLP, San Francisco, CA; Mark A. Klapow, Crinesha B. Berry, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, D.C. for defendant.
Case Number: 20-cv-613-SB
Court excluded economic expert's testimony as unsupported by data and methodology where expert claimed there was little likelihood of a market for plaintiffs' product, since there were insufficient facts about the attributes of the product or whether there were current substitutes for the product already on market.
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: 2023-10-09
Practice Area: Government
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Burke
Attorneys: For plaintiff: James G. McMillan, III, William E. Green, Jr., Halloran Farkas + Kittila LLP, Wilmington, DE; Mark C. Rifkin, Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Freeman & Herz LLP, New York, NY; Arthur Susman, Law Office of Arthur Susman, Chicago, IL for plaintiff.
for defendant: Arthur G. Connolly, Max B. Walton, Christina M. Thompson, Lisa R. Hatfield, Connolly Gallagher LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: 22-611-CJB
Concluding that a litigant does not have a cognizable property interest in abandoned property, the court dismissed plaintiff's complaint challenging the constitutionality of Delaware's Abandoned and Unclaimed Property Law. In addition, the court dismissed the complaint on ripeness grounds concluding that because the questions of whether plaintiff would actually make a claim on the property and be able to sufficiently demonstrate his ownership rights were unanswered, the parties' interests were not sufficiently adverse to give rise to
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read