Filter This View

  • TQ Delta, LLC v. Adtran, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2020-08-12
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian E. Farnan and Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Peter J. McAndrews, Rajendra A. Chiplunkar and Ashley M. Ratycz, McAndrews, Held & Mallory, Ltd., Chicago, IL for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Kenneth L. Dorsney, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE; Paul M. Sykes, David W. Holt, Benn C. Wilson and Jake M. Gipson, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Birmingham, AL for defendant.
    Case Number: D69086

    Genuine issues of material fact existed with regard to this patent infringement matter, so the court denied the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.

  • In re: Affirmative Ins. Holdings Inc.

    Publication Date: 2020-08-12
    Practice Area: Bankruptcy
    Industry: Federal Government | Insurance
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Richard E. Zuckerman, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Christopher J. Williamson and Ward W. Benson, Tax Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC for appellant.
    for defendant: Jeffrey L. Moyer, Travis S. Hunter, and Arun J. Mohan, Richards Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for appellee.
    Case Number: D69080

    Bankruptcy court erred in attempting to bifurcate corporate income taxes from a straddle year when tax law provided that annual income taxes only accrued and became liable on the last day of the tax year.

  • W.R. Berkley Corp. v. Dunai

    Publication Date: 2020-08-05
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Insurance
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Scott A. Holt and Curtis J. Crowther, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Daniel C. Herr, Law Office of Daniel C. Herr LLC, Wilmington, DE; Kristen Prinz and Amit Bindra, The Prinz Law Firm, P.C., Chicago, IL for defendant.
    Case Number: D69061

    The court denied defendant's motion to dismiss, because the record did not contain sufficient information to conduct a choice of law analysis.

  • Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. Echelon Fitness, LLC

    Publication Date: 2020-08-05
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael Flynn and Anthony D. Raucci, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Steven N. Feldman, Christina V. Rayburn, Karen Younkins, Kevin X. Wang and Maxwell K. Coll, Hueston Hennigan LLP, Los Angeles, CA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Benjamin J. Schladweiler, Douglas R. Weider and James L. Ryerson, Greenberg Traurig, Wilmington, DE and Florham Park, NJ for defendant.
    Case Number: D69058

    Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate that its patents involved an inventive concept, rather than an abstract idea.

  • Halosil Int'l Inc. v. Eco-Evolutions, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2020-07-29
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Distribution and Wholesale | Retail
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen B. Brauerman, Bayard P.A., Wilmington, DE; Kent E. Baldauf, Jr. and Barry J. Coyne , The Webb Law Firm, Pittsburgh, PA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Michael F. Duggan and Marc Sposato, Marks, O’Neill, O’Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Stephen H. Luther and Ryan T. Santurri, Allen, Dyer, Doppelt& Gilchrist, PA, Orlando, FL for defendants.
    Case Number: D69064

    Breach of contract claims were untimely where the claims accrued after plaintiff was put on notice defendant may have developed and patented a product based off plaintiff's product in breach of the parties' agreement.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Georgia Construction Law Handbook 2024

    Authors: T. BART GARY, JAKE CARROLL

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. Echelon Fitness, LLC

    Publication Date: 2020-07-22
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael Flynn and Anthony D. Raucci, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Steven N. Feldman, Christina V. Rayburn, Karen Younkins, Kevin X. Wang and Maxwell K. Coll, Hueston Hennigan LLP, Los Angeles, CA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Benjamin J. Schladweiler, Douglas R. Weider and James L. Ryerson, Greenberg Traurig, Wilmington, DE and Florham Park, NJ for defendant.
    Case Number: D69058

    Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate that its patents involved an inventive concept, rather than an abstract idea.

  • W.R. Berkley Corp. v. Dunai

    Publication Date: 2020-07-22
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Insurance
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Scott A. Holt and Curtis J. Crowther, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Daniel C. Herr, Law Office of Daniel C. Herr LLC, Wilmington, DE; Kristen Prinz and Amit Bindra, The Prinz Law Firm, P.C., Chicago, IL for defendant.
    Case Number: D69061

    The court denied defendant's motion to dismiss, because the record did not contain sufficient information to conduct a choice of law analysis.

  • Archer v. Defenders, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2020-07-01
    Practice Area: Labor Law
    Industry:
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian D. Long, Rigrodsky&Long, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Ted E. Trief, Shelly L. Friedland, EyalDror, Trief&Olk, New York, NY; Peter S. Pearlman, Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf LLP, Saddle Brook, NJ; Macy D. Hanson, The Law Office of Macy D. Hanson, PLLC, Madison, MS for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: J. Cory Falgowski, Burr & Forman LLP, Wilmington, DE; K. Bryance Metheny, Ronald W. Flowers, Jr., Martin E. Burke, H. Carlton Hilson, Burr & Forman LLP, Birmingham, AL for defendant.
    Case Number: D69030

    Court declined to dismiss opt-in plaintiffs from wage and hour collective action on grounds of judicial estoppel for those plaintiffs' failures to disclose their claims on their bankruptcy petition, where those plaintiffs either retained the opportunity to amend their bankruptcy petitions or where any inference of bad faith was not strong enough to warrant the sanction of dismissal.

  • RBATHTDSR, LLC v. Project 64 LLC

    Publication Date: 2020-06-10
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
    Industry: Construction
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Scott T. Earle, Zarwin Baum DeVito Kaplan Schaer Toddy, P.C., Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy LLC, Wilmington, DE; Thomas J. Connick, Connick Law LLC, Beachwood, OH for defendants.
    Case Number: D69011

    Plaintiff stated a claim for breach of contract, but the gist of the action doctrine barred the tort claims.

  • Adams v. Klein

    Publication Date: 2020-05-27
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Gregory F. Fischer, Cozen O’Connor, Wilmington, DE; Michael B. de Leeuw, Matthew L. Elkin, and Martin Bloor, Cozen O’Connor, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Andrew L. Cole and Bradley P. Lehman, Cole Schotz, Wilmington, DE; Steven R. Klein and Rachel A. Mongiello, Cole Schotz, Hackensack, NJ for defendant.
    Case Number: D68990

    Tortious interference counterclaim brought by LLC member terminated as CEO dismissed on summary judgment where the LLC duty of loyalty did not extend to members acting with respect to one another in the employment context.