Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
28 results for '* judge:"District Judge Burke"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2023-06-20
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Burke
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kelly E. Farnan, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Mark Boland, Raja Saliba, Michael R. Dzwonczyk, Chidambaram S. Iyer, Sughrue Mion, PLLC for plaintiff.
for defendant: Carl D. Neff, FisherBroyles, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Ryan T. Beard, FisherBroyles, LLP, Austin, TX; Christopher R. Kinkade, FisherBroyles, LLP, Princeton, NJ for defendant.
Case Number: 21-1821-CJB
Patent claims described a sufficiently narrower invention than the abstract idea of file synchronization to constitute an arguable improvement in computer technology and an inventive concept.
Publication Date: 2023-06-20
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Electronics | Manufacturing | Software
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Burke
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Philip A. Rovner, Jonathan A. Choa, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Paul J. Andre, Lisa Kobialka, James Hannah, Timothy Layden, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Menlo Park, CA; Aaron M. Frankel, Cristina Martinez, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Karen Jacobs, Cameron P. Clark, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Kristin L. Cleveland, Mark W. Wilson, Salumeh R. Loesch, John D. Vandenberg, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, Portland, OR; Kristina R. Cary, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Boston, MA; Gregg F. LoCascio, P.C., Michael A. Pearson, Jr., Matthew J. McIntee, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, D.C.; Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Clement Naples, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY; Gabriel K. Bell, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, D.C.; Thomas W. Yeh, Latham & Watkins LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Daniel S. Todd, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA for defendants.
Case Number: 22-151-CJB
Patent did not claim ineligible subject matter where it recited an inventive concept that improved upon the prior art by claiming to solve limitations of previous systems through a specific procedure.
Publication Date: 2023-05-09
Practice Area: Administrative Law
Industry: Federal Government
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Burke
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Gary Linarducci, Linarducci & Butler, PA, New Castle, DE; Karl E. Osterhout, Osterhout Berger Disability Law, Oakmont, PA for plaintiff.
for defendant: David C. Weiss, United States Attorney, United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Delaware, Wilmington, DE; Brian C. O’Donnell, Regional Counsel, Annie Kernicky, Assistant Regional Counsel, Margaret W. Reed, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Social Security Administration, Philadelphia, PA for defendant.
Case Number: 21-17-CJB
ALJ erred in finding that disability applicant possessed a residual functional capacity where the reliable expert testimony did not support the factual findings that applicant was capable of performing manipulative tasks with her hands frequently or sitting for extended periods during the workday.
Publication Date: 2023-04-11
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Consulting | Entertainment and Leisure
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Burke
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Thomas A. Uebler, Joseph L. Christensen, McCollom D’Emilio Smith Uebler LLC, Wilmington, DE; Edward Totino, Nancy Nguyen Sims, Michael T. Boardman, Baker & Mckenzie LLP, Los Angeles, CA for plaintiffs.
for defendant: John M. Seaman, E. Wade Houston, Abrams & Bayliss, Wilmington, DE; Trey Cox, Paulette C. Miniter, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Dallas, TX for defendants.
Case Number: 22-363-CJB
Where contract detailed procedure by which parties were to negotiate undefined variable compensation fees, the contract created a duty to negotiate in good faith and allegations that customer failed to lodge reasoned objections or otherwise participate in the negotiation process was sufficient to state a claim for breach.
Publication Date: 2023-03-07
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: E-Commerce | Software
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Burke
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Susan E. Morrison, Fish & Richardson P.C., Wilmington, DE; Frank E. Scherkenbach, Adam Kessel, Andrew Pearson, Fish & Richardson P.C., Boston, MA; Jason W. Wolff, Fish & Richardson P.C., San Diego, CA; Excylyn Hardin-Smith, Fish & Richardson P.C., New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Jennifer Ying, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Kevin P.B. Johnson, Diane M. Doolittle, Ray Zado, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Redwood Shores, CA; Marissa R. Ducca, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Jodie Cheng, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, San Francisco, CA for defendant.
Case Number: 22-900-CJB
Court declined to dismiss patent infringement case at pleadings stage due to lack of patent-eligible subject matter where patent claims appeared to describe new method of electronic data management solving existing problems of flexibility and portability between databases, which constituted an inventive concept beyond the abstract idea of managing data.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Gary L. Brown
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2022-12-20
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: E-Commerce
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Burke
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian A. Biggs, Angela C. Whitesell, DLA Piper LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sean Cunningham, Erin P. Gibson, Tiffany Miller, DLA Piper LLP, San Diego, CA; Helena Kiepura, DLA Piper LLP, Washington, DC; Brent Yamashita, DLA Piper LLP, East Palo Alto, CA; Dawn Jenkins, DLA Piper LLP, Houston, TX; Nancy C. Braman, DLPA Piper LLP, Boston, MA for plaintiff.
for defendant: Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Matthew D. Vella, Robert R. Gilman, Aaron Jacobs, Prince Lobel Tye LLP, Boston, MA for defendants.
Case Number: 22-730-GBW-CJB
Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in a patent infringement case, noting that they had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the cause pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act.
Publication Date: 2022-12-06
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Burke
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Karen E. Keller, Andrew E. Russell, Nathan R. Hoeschen, Emily S. DiBenedetto, Shaw Keller LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sanya Sukduang, Johnathan R. Davis, Allison E. Elkman, Cooley LLP, Washington, DC; Mazda Antia, Erin Trenda, Cooley LLP, San Diego, CA for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Kenneth L. Dorsney, Cortlan S. Hitch, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE; Deepro R. Mukerjee, Lance A. Soderstrom, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, New York, NY; Joseph M. Janusz, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Charlotte, NC for defendants.
Case Number: 22-640-CJB
A patent licensor could issue a license to a future continuation patent that was ultimately not issued to the licensor by expressly including future continuation patents in the scope of the license since permitting the eventual patent owner to sue for infringement of the continuation patent would undermine rights acquired for consideration by the licensee.
Publication Date: 2021-12-21
Practice Area: Products Liability
Industry: Health Care | Manufacturing
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Burke
Attorneys: For plaintiff: David G. Culley, Tybout, Redfearn & Pell, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff;
for defendant: Brian M. Rostocki, Reed Smith LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant.
Case Number: D69652
Product liability claim based on "indeterminate product test" dismissed where the test provided an evidentiary means of proving manufacturing defects but did not itself constitute a separate legal claim.
Publication Date: 2021-12-14
Practice Area: Products Liability
Industry: Health Care | Manufacturing
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Burke
Attorneys: For plaintiff: David G. Culley, Tybout, Redfearn & Pell, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff
for defendant: Brian M. Rostocki, Reed Smith LLP, Wilmington, DE; J. David Bickham, Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA; Michael K. Brown, Reed Smith LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendants
Case Number: D69645
Motion to dismiss amended product liability claim involving medical device denied where the amended complaint asserted new facts further explaining the similarities between the product-in-suit and other products subject to consumer complaints and recalls.
Publication Date: 2020-03-25
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Health Care | Manufacturing
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Burke
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jack B. Blumenfeld and Michael J. Flynn, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Joseph A. Mahoney, Mayer Brown LLP, Charlotte, NC; B. Clayton McCraw and Ying-Zi Yang, Mayer Brown LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Melanie K. Sharp, James L. Higgins and Michelle M. Ovanesian, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Steven Lieberman, Rachel M. Echols, Daniel R. McCallum and Nicole M. DeAbrantes, Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C., Washington, DC for defendant.
Case Number: D68922
The court dismissed plaintiff's claim for direct patent infringement, but it denied the motion to dismiss as to the claim for indi-rect infringement.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read