Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
383 results for '* industry:"Technology Media and Telecom"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2018-01-24
Practice Area: Bankruptcy | Creditors' and Debtors' Rights
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Judge: Judge Gross
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: D68017
Bankruptcy court determined that creditor was entitled to new value defense as to one payment because it was permitted under the parties agreement and it benefitted the debtors, but not for another payment for which there remained genuine issues of material fact.
Publication Date: 2018-01-03
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Entertainment and Leisure | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Philip A. Rovner, Jonathan A. Choa, Paul J. Andre, Lisa Kobialka, James R. Hannah, Hannah Lee and Aaron M. Frankel for plaintiff
for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Stephen J. Kraftschik, Michael A. Tomasulo, Gino Cheng, David K. Lin, Joe S. Netikosol, Michael M. Murray, David P. Enzminger, Dan K. Webb and Kathleen B. Barry for defendants.
Case Number: D67993
The court construed various terms in this patent litigation relating to computer technology.
Publication Date: 2017-12-13
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Software | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Montgomery-Reeves
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Peter B. Andrews, Craig J. Springer, and David M. Sborz, Andrews & Springer LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stuart A. Davidson and Christopher Martins, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Boca Raton, FL; David T. Wissbroecker and Edward Gergosian, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, CA, attorneys for plaintiff
for defendant: Thomas A. Beck, Blake Rohrbacher, and Susan M. Hannigan, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE, attorneys for defendants.
Case Number: D67968
Although proxy failed to disclose identity of selling companys key negotiators, stockholders challenge to tender offer and merger transaction dismissed for failure to plead non-exculpated claims against co-founders and directors, where there was no evidence that majority of board and tendering stockholders were interested or non-independent.
Publication Date: 2017-12-13
Practice Area: Creditors' and Debtors' Rights
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Butler
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Neil R. Lapinski, Gordon Fournaris & Mammarella, P.A., Wilmington, DE, attorney for plaintiff
for defendant: Richard M. Beck and Sean M. Brennecke, Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg, LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for defendants.
Case Number: D67967
Defendants motion for summary judgment denied where loan agreement provisions among the parties effectively obligating related non-party to protect its interest in senior debt created a factual dispute over the predicate conditions for plaintiffs right to bring suit against defendants for amounts due under a subordinated note.
Publication Date: 2017-12-06
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: 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, attorneys for plaintiff
for defendant: Dennis J. Butler and John D. Simmons, Panitch Schwarze Belisaro & Nadel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Adam W. Poff and Robert M. Vrana, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jack B. Blumenfeld and Stephen J. Kraftschik, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; John C. Phillips and David A. Bilson, Phillips Goldman McLaughlin & Hall, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Chad S.C. Stover, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Chicago, IL; Todd G. Vare and Jeffrey M. Barron, Barnes & Thornburg, LLP, Indianapolis, IN, attorneys for defendant.
Case Number: D67958
Court rejected plaintiffs assertion that patent claims of primary mode of communication and another available mode of communication had their plain meanings, adopting constructions that comported with the parties understanding that the claimed device had to designate a first mode of communication on start-up, and would use another mode when the primary one was unavailable.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Jayme C. Long
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2017-11-29
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Stark
Attorneys: For plaintiff: David E. Moore, Bindu A. Palapura, and Stephanie E. O'Byrne, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; John M. Desmarais, Jon T. Hohenthaner, Karim Z. Oussayef, Laurie N. Stempler, and Robert C. Harrits, Desmarais LLP, New York, NY, attorneys for plaintiff
for defendant: John G. Day and Andrew C. Mayo, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; J. David Hadden, Saina S. Shamilov, Phillip J. Haack, and Adam M. Lewin, Fenwick & West LLP, Mountain View, CA, attorneys for defendant.
Case Number: D67952
Patents-in-suit were not invalid due to being directed to patent-ineligible abstract ideas where the claims specifically described the architecture for improving the functionality of computer networks, rather than claiming data storage generally.
Publication Date: 2017-11-29
Practice Area: Bankruptcy
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Vanaskie
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: D67953
Where the parent corporation of plaintiffs employer did not assume contractual liability for plaintiffs employment, plaintiff lacked creditor standing to bring a derivative action. Dismissal affirmed.
Publication Date: 2017-11-29
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Software | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Sleet
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: D67950
Plaintiffs motion for leave to amend complaint to add new defendant and new claim against that defendant denied, where related existing claims had already been dismissed in favor of arbitration, new claim could have been asserted in separate action, and proceedings would be delayed as discovery had partially completed.
Publication Date: 2017-11-08
Practice Area: Corporate Entities | Corporate Governance
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joel Friedlander, Jeffrey M. Gorris, and Christopher P. Quinn, Friedlander & Gorris, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Randall J. Barron, A. Rick Atwood, and Esther Lee, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, CA, attorneys for plaintiffs
for defendant: Peter J. Walsh, Jr., Frank R. Martin, and Travis R. Dunkelberger, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; William M. Lafferty, Ryan D. Stottman, and Alexandra M. Cumings, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Edward B. Micheletti, Alyssa S. O'Connell, Sarah Runnells Martin, and Lauren N. Rosenello, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for defendants.
Case Number: D67927
Submitting disputes to sole authority and exclusive jurisdiction of neutral party indicated parties intent to submit to arbitration, and designated neutral with conflicts of interest had authority to rule on procedural matters of appointing alternate arbiter.
Publication Date: 2017-10-25
Practice Area: Contracts | Contractual Disputes | Telecommunications
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Counsel: Michael W. McDermott, David B. Anthony, William M. “B.J.” Lyon, Jr. and Patricia Clotfelter for plaintiff
for defendant: Geoffrey G. Grivner for defendants.
Case Number: D67916
The court granted defendants motion for summary judgment because the unambiguous terms of the parties agreement included a waiver within the definition of maritime business. With regard to the exercise of certain options, defendants failed to timely act, so the court granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on that issue.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read