Filter This View

  • Univar Solutions Inc. v. Geisenberger

    Publication Date: 2022-06-21
    Practice Area: Administrative Law
    Industry: Chemicals and Materials | Distribution and Wholesale | State and Local Government
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Noreika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Matthew J. Rifino, Travis Ferguson, McCarter & English LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jameel S. Turner, James G. Ryan, Bailey Cavalieri LLC, Columbus OH for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Melanie K. Sharp, Martin S. Lessner, Mary F. Dugan, Robert M. Vrana, Young Conaway Stargett & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
    Case Number: D69858

    Constitutional challenges to audit under state escheat law overruled where there was no showing that state would undertake estimation of escheated property held by entity and where seizure of property owned by entities with foreign last known addresses did not violate the foreign commerce clause.

  • Bianchi v. B & G Machine, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-06-21
    Practice Area: Employment Litigation
    Industry: Distribution and Wholesale
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Fallon
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: D69859

    Age discrimination claim dismissed where there was no strong direct evidence to demonstrate that employer's decision to terminate employee was motivated by employee's age, as managers had made only stray remarks months prior to the employee's ultimate termination.

  • Doe v. New Castle County

    Publication Date: 2022-06-21
    Practice Area: Employment Litigation
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Lauren A. Cirrinicione, Murphy & Landon, Wilmington, DE; Patrick C. Gallagher, Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Mary A. Jacobson, Helene Episcopo, New Castle County Office of Law, New Castle, DE for defendants.
    Case Number: D69860

    Court denied dismissal of constructive discharge and whistleblower retaliation claims where transfer to work under difficult supervisor could constitute adverse employment action and where employer had failed to present evidence that it had effective process for reporting co-worker harassment.

  • White Winston Select Asset Funds, LLC v. Good Times Rest., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-06-07
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Food and Beverage
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Bibas
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: D69842

    Letter of intent merely binding the parties to negotiate in good faith without any binding agreement on key terms of final agreement only entitled purchasing party to reliance damages.

  • Astellas US LLC v. Hospira, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-05-31
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Connolly
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Douglas E. McCann, Gregory R. Booker, Robert M. Oakes, Nitika G. Fiorella, Kelly A. Del Dotto, Fish & Richardson P.C., Wilmington, DE; Elizabeth M. Flanagan, Michael J. Kane, Ryan V. Petty, Fish & Richardson P.C., Minneapolis, MN; W. Chad Shear, K. Nicole Williams, Fish & Richardson P.C., San Diego, CA; John M. Farrell, Fish & Richardson P.C., Redwood City, CA; Caitlin M. Dean, Fish & Richardson P.C., New York, NY; Laura E. Powell, Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, DC; Jason Leonard, Vincent Li, McDermott Will & Emory, New York, NY; Lisa M. Ferri, Manuel J. Velez, Mayer Brown LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Dominick T. Gattuso, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Nathan R. Hoeschen, Shaw Keller LLP, Wilmington, DE; Charles B. Klein, Jovial Wong, Claire A. Fundakowski, Winston & Strawn LLP, Washington, DC; Alison M. King, Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL for defendant.
    Case Number: D69833

    Patent infringement claims arising from manufacture of pharmaceutical generic product failed where abbreviated new drug application expressly excluded use of form of active ingredient that was protected by patent claims, and where plaintiffs failed to submit evidence showing that any amount of patent-protected claim would be generated by the manufacturing process.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Connecticut Employment Law, Seventh Edition

    Authors: Pamela J. Moore

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • NexStep, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC

    Publication Date: 2022-05-31
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Philip A. Rovner, Jonathan A. Choa, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Paul J. Andre, Lisa Kobialka, James Hannah, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Menlo Park, CA; Jonathan S. Caplan, Aaron M. Frankel, Marcus A. Colucci, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Brian P. Egan, MORRIS, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; William F. Lee, Sarah B. Petty, Kate Saxton, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA; Amy Kreiger Wigmore, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, D.C.; Mary (Mindy) V. Sooter, Nora Q.E. Passamaneck, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Denver, CO for defendant.
    Case Number: D69837

    Jury verdict of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents overturned where plaintiff's expert failed to offer a linking argument between the patent claims and the alleged equivalent infringing product, but instead merely offered generalized and conclusory testimony about their similarity.

  • Hantz v. Div. of State Police

    Publication Date: 2022-05-31
    Practice Area: Labor Law
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: John M. LaRosa, LaRosa & Associates LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Kenneth L. Wan, State of Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE for defendant.
    Case Number: D69834

    Motion to dismiss harassment/retaliation claim denied where employee plausibly pled a continuing course of conduct constituting a hostile work environment and that she was transferred to a less desirable posting after complaining of her disparate treatment.

  • Micro Focus (US), Inc. v. Ins. Serv. Office, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-05-24
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Insurance | Software
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: J. Clayton Athey, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Hugh J. Marbury, Kaan Ekiner, Ryan P. Bottegal, Cozen O’Connor, Washington, DC; Stuart M.G. Seraina, BaldwinLaw LLC, Baltimore, MD for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Brian R. Lemon, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Scott S. Christie, McCarter & English, LLP, Newark, NJ for defendant.
    Case Number: D69827

    Although one defendant lacked standing to assert breach of contract claims where it was not a party or intended third-party beneficiary of the contract as it did not exist at the time of contract formation, the district court could exercise its discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after having dismissed all federal claims.

  • Arendi S.A.R.L. v. LG Elec., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-05-17
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Electronics | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Neal C. Belgam, Eve H. Omerod, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE; Seth Ard, Beatrice Franklin, Max Straus, Susman Godfrey, LLP, New York, NY; John Lahad, Ibituroko-Emi Lawson, Robert Travis Korman, Brenda Adimora, Susman Godfrey, LLP, Houston, TX; Kalpana Srinivasan, Susman Godfrey, LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Kemper Diehl, Susman Godfrey, LLP, Seattle, WA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Jeremy D. Anderson, Fish & Richardson P.C., Wilmington, DE; Steven R. Katz, Jacob Pecht, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Boston, MA; R. Andrew Schewentker, Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, DC; Eda Stark, Fish & Richardson P.C., Atlanta, GA; Kenneth L. Dorsney, Cortlan S. Hitch, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brian C. Riopelle, David E. Finkelson, McGuireWoods LLP, Richmond, VA; Jason W. Cook, McGuireWoods LLP, Dallas, TX; David E. Moore, Bindu A. Palapura, Stephanie E. O’Byrne, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Robert W. Unikel, Michelle Marek Figueiredo, John Cotiguala, Matt Lind, Paul Hastings LLP, Chicago, IL; Robert R. Laurenzi, Chad J. Peterman, Paul Hastings LLP, New York, NY; Arielle Bratton, Paul Hastings LLP, San Diego, CA; Ginger Anders, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Washington, DC; Rodger D. Smith II, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jeffri A. Kaminski, Justin E. Pierce, Calvin R. Nelson, Venable LLP, Washington, DC; Neha Bhat, Venable LLP, New York, NY; Jack B. Blumenfeld, Brian P. Egan, Anthony D. Raucci, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Frank C. Cimino Jr., Megan S. Woodworth, Jeffri A. Kaminsi, Calvin R. Nelson, Neha Bhat, Venable, Washington, DC for defendants.
    Case Number: D69819

    Court denied defendants' motions for summary judgment of non-infringement where the evidence created a triable issue as to whether defendants' accused products met the claim limitation of a "document" because the product applications could have permitted users to edit files in the application.

  • Panchigar v. Delaware Dep't of Corr. Comm'r

    Publication Date: 2022-05-17
    Practice Area: Civil Rights
    Industry:
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brandon Lee Panchigar, James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, Smyrna, Delaware, pro se plaintiff.
    for defendant: N/A
    Case Number: D69821

    Deliberate indifference to medical need claims under the Eighth Amendment could not be based on allegations of medical malpractice or disagreement over the proper course of treatment.