Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
2,238 results for '* court:"DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
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.
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.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: T. BART GARY, JAKE CARROLL
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
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
Publication Date: 2023-10-02
Practice Area: Copyrights
Industry: Consulting | Software
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Bryson
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 23-325-WCB
Court declined to stay civil suit pending related criminal action against defendant's former employees where the procedural posture of the criminal action meant any delay would likely be long, while there was the potential that factual overlap between the cases would be eliminated through dismissal of charges and any prejudice to defendant was limited to being unable to obtain evidence from its former employees.
Publication Date: 2023-10-02
Practice Area: Consumer Protection
Industry: Automotive
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Wallach
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kelly A. Green, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Russell D. Paul, Amey J. Park, Abigail J. Gertner, Natalie Lesser, Berger Montague PC, Philadelphia, PA; Tarek H. Zohdy, Cody R. Padgett, Laura E. Goolsby, Capstone Law APC, Los Angeles, CA; Steven Calamusa, Geoffrey Stahl, Rachel Bentley, Gordon & Partners, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, FL for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Patrick M. Brannigan, Jessica L. Reno, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephen A. D’Aunoy, Thomas L. Azar, Scott H. Morgan, Thompson Coburn LLP, St. Louis, MO for defendant.
Case Number: 21-cv-00906-EJW
Vehicle purchasers' fraud claims against manufacturer failed where their evidence failed to permit an inference that the manufacturer had pre-sale knowledge of an alleged design or manufacturing defect in one of the vehicle's components, and where there was no allegation that the manufacturer knowingly concealed or misrepresented the alleged defect.
Publication Date: 2023-10-02
Practice Area: Bankruptcy
Industry: Manufacturing
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Susan E. Kaufman, Law Office of Susan E. Kaufman, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Nathan Kilbert, Assistant General Counsel, United Steel Workers, Pittsburgh, PA; Richard M. Seltzer, Melissa S. Woods, Sommer Omar, Cohen, Weiss and Simon LLP, New York, NY for appellant.
for defendant: B. Nelson Sproat, Blank Rome LLP, Wilmington, DE; Andrew Herman, John Lucian, Blank Rome LLP, Philadelphia, PA for appellee.
Case Number: 22-10252 (JTD)
Relying on the general principle that, notwithstanding a bankruptcy court's authority to extinguish liabilities incurred prior to the sale of the debtor's assets, the court cannot insulate a purchaser from liability for claims arising after the sale due to the purchaser's conduct, the court concluded that appellee's status as a successor to debtor's business was determined by its post-sale conduct in hiring a majority of its workforce from the predecessor and maintaining substantial continuity in business operations.
Publication Date: 2023-10-02
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: John W. Shaw, Karen E. Keller, Nathan R. Hoeschen, Shaw Keller LLP, Wilmington, DE; Robert Frederickson III, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA; Alexandra D. Valenti, Jenevieve N. Nutovits, Goodwin Procter LLP, New York, NY; Alison Siedor, Goodwin Procter LLP, Washington, D.C. for plaintiff.
for defendant: Francis DiGiovanni, Thatcher A. Rahmeier, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael E. Zeliger, Ranjini Acharya, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Palo Alto, CA; Evan Finkel, Michael S. Horikawa, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendants.
Case Number: 22-1545-GBW
Court dismissed patent infringement case due to patents being directed to an ineligible abstract idea of using mathematical processes to optimize event schedules, where the patent did not specify new devices or technologies but instead relied upon generic computers and machine learning algorithms.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read