Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
122 results for '* judge:"District Judge Andrews"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2020-01-08
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: R. Montgomery Donaldson and Christina B. Vavala, Polsinelli PC, Wilmington, DE; B. Trent Webb, Aaron E. Hankel, Ryan J. Schletzbaum, Ryan D. Dykal, Jordan T. Bergsten, Lauren E. Douville, Mark D. Schafer, Maxwell C. McGraw, Samuel J. LaRoque, Robert H. Reckers and Michael W. Gray, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kansas City, MO and Houston, TX for Sprint Communications.
for defendant: Kelly E. Farnan, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; David S. Benyacar, Daniel L. Reisner and Robert J. Ka-terberg, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, New York, NY and Washington, DC; Gregory Arovas, Jeanne M. Heffernan, James E. Marina, Luke L. Dauchot and Bao Nguyen, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY, Los Angeles, CA and San Francisco, CA for Charter Communications. Steven J. Balick and Andrew C. Mayo, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Robinson Vu, Lindsay Volpenhein Cutié, Amy E. Bergeron and Timothy S. Durst, Baker Botts LLP, Houston, TX and Dallas, TX for Media-com Communications, WideOpenWest Networks, Atlantic Broadband Fin. and Grande Communications Networks. Phillip A. Rovner, Jonathan A. Choa and Alan R. Silverstein, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brian M. Buroker, Omar F. Amin, Jessica Altman and Robert Vincent, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC and Dallas, TX for Frontier Com-munications.
Case Number: D68836
The court construed patent terms relating to technology for making telephone calls over the internet.
Publication Date: 2020-01-01
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Electronics | 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; Mark S. Raskin, Robert A. Whitman, Michael S. De Vincenzo, John F. Petrsoric, and Andrea Pacelli, Mishcon De Reya New York LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld and Jennifer Ying, Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael Brody and Jonathan Retsky, Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL; David P. Enzminger, Winston & Strawn LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Krishnan Padmanabhan, Winston & Strawn LLP, New York, NY; James Lin, Winston & Strawn LLP, Menlo Park, CA for defendant.
Case Number: D68823
Expert opinion regarding written description and enablement excluded where the expert focused on the accused technologies and failed to analyze whether the specifications sufficiently described the patent claims.
Publication Date: 2019-12-25
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: David E. Moore, Bindu A. Palapura and Stephanie E. O’Byrne, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wil-mington, DE; Steven Yovits, Mark Scott, Clifford Katz and Malavika Rao, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Chicago, IL for plaintiff.
for defendant: Kelly E. Farnan, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Sten Jensen, Clement Seth Roberts and Alyssa Caridis, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Washington, DC, San Francisco, CA and Los Angeles, CA for defendant.
Case Number: D68817
Plaintiff's patents contained inventive concepts that were directed to address known issues, so they were not simply abstract ideas.
Publication Date: 2019-12-11
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stamatios Stamoulis and Richard C. Weinblatt, Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs. Wendy Verland and Jeffrey D. Ahdoot, Blackbird Technologies, Boston, MA for plaintiff Blackbird Tech LLC. Thomas C. Grimm and Jeremy A. Tigan, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE
for defendant: Ronald F. Lopez and Jennifer Hayes, Nixon Peabody LLP, San Francisco, CA and Los Angeles, CA for Sierra Wireless defend-ants. Jack B. Blumenfeld and Rodger D. Smith II, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; David Loewenstein and Clyde A. Shuman, Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer, Wilmington, DE for defendant Telit Wireless Solutions.
Case Number: D68804
In this patent claim construction matter, the court concluded that a preamble could be limiting, and a prior statement was not sufficiently specific to qualify as a prosecution history disclaimer.
Publication Date: 2019-09-25
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Agriculture | Legal Services | Manufacturing
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: D68717
Plaintiff failed to adequately allege demand futility in connection with his derivative claims, and the statute of limitations barred one fraud claim.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors:
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2019-09-25
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kelly E. Farnan and Christine D. Haynes, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Dominick A. Conde, Christopher P. Borello and Damien N. Dombrowski, Venable LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld and Jeremy A. Tigan, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP,Wilmington, DE; Martin J. Black, Kevin M. Flannery, Robert Ashbrook, Sharon K. Gagliardi, Blake B. Greene and Katherine A. Helm, Dechert LLP, Philadelphia, PA and New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: D68716
The court denied defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law and alternative motion for a new trial, because the jury's verdict in this patent infringement matter was supported by the evidence.
Publication Date: 2019-09-18
Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
Industry: Pharmaceuticals
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; Martin J. Black, Joseph J. Gribbin, Luke M. Reilly and Katherine A. Helm, Dechert LLP, Philadelphia, PA and New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Joel Friedlander, Christopher M. Foulds and Christopher P. Quinn, Friedlander & Gorris, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Benjamin J. Razi, Dennis B. Auerbach and Jon-Michael Dougherty, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC for defendant.
Case Number: D68708
The unambiguous terms of the parties' licensing agreement did not permit defendant to deprive plaintiff of its right to exercise an option for an extension of the contract.
Publication Date: 2019-09-18
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Advertising | E-Commerce
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Arthur G. Connolly III, Ryan P. Newell and Kyle Evans Gay, Connolly Gallagher LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jeffrey S. Standley, James Lee Kwak and F. Michael Speed, Jr., Standley Law Group LLP, Dublin, OH for plaintiff.
for defendant: John W. Shaw, Karen E. Keller, David M. Fry and Nathan R. Hoeschen, Shaw Keller LLP, Wilmington, DE; Douglas J. Kline, Srikanth K. Reddy, Molly R. Grammel and Naomi L. Birbach, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA and New York, NY; Yuval H. Marcus, Cameron S. Reuber, Matthew L. Kaufman and Lori L. Cooper, Leason Ellis LLP, White Plains, NY for defendants.
Case Number: D68707
An expert witness in this patent litigation matter was entitled to present testimony regarding his reasonable royalty calcula-tions, but another expert's lost profits opinion was not based on sufficient reliable information.
Publication Date: 2019-09-18
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Entertainment and Leisure
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: D68702
Expert damages opinion in patent infringement case excluded where expert relied upon conclusion that no non-infringing example existed and therefore rendered calculation of cost to create such an example illogical, and where expert provided an insufficient basis to apportion value to infringing portion of product.
Publication Date: 2019-09-04
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Software
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kenneth Dorsney, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE, Ian R. Liston, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., Wilmington, DE, James C. Yoon, Ryan R. Smith, Christopher D. Mays, and Mary A. Procaccio-Flowers, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., Palo Alto, CA for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld and Stephen J. Kraftschik, Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Erik B. Milch, Frank Pietrantonio, and Dustin Knight, Cooley LLP, Reston, VA, Rose Whelan, Lisa Fuller Schweir, and Naina Soni, Cooley LLP, Washington, DC for defendant.
Case Number: D68686
Court did not erroneously construe software limitation as a means-plus-function term where the word "means" was absent from the claim and where the claim as a whole failed to connote sufficient structure to a POSA.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read