Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
132 results for '* judge:"District Judge Noreika"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2023-04-11
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Sue L. Robinson, Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Andrew J. Entwistle, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, Austin, TX; Vincent R. Cappucci, Arthur V. Nealon, Brendan J. Brodeur, Jonathan H. Beemer, Jessica A. Margulis, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, New York, NY; Marc M. Seltzer, Krysta Kauble Pachman, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Los Angeles, CA for plaintiffs.
for defendant: A. Thompson Bayliss, April M. Ferraro, Christopher Fitzpatrick Cannataro, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Alan S. Goudiss, K. Mallory Brennan, Sherman & Sterling LLP, New York, NY; Christian E. Myrold, Shearman & Sterling LLP, San Francisco, CA; Matthew D. Stachel, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jaren Janghorbani, Geoffrey Chepiga, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: 20-275 (MN) (JLH)
Court hearing claims under §14(a) properly excluded shareholders who sold their stock after the merger approval vote but before closing, since their alleged pecuniary injury did not directly arise from the challenged merger.
Publication Date: 2023-04-04
Practice Area: Bankruptcy
Industry: Hospitality and Lodging | Legal Services
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Busenkell, Ronald S. Gellert, Bradley P. Lehman, Gellert Scali Buskenell & Brown, LLC; Michael T. Mihm, Jason B. Wesoky, James E. Fogg, Ogborn Mihm LLP for appellants.
for defendant: John D. Demmy, Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brad D. Brian, Bethany W. Kristovich, Munger, Torres & Olson LLP, Los Angeles, CA for appellee.
Case Number: 22-689 (MN)
The court affirmed an order of the Bankruptcy Court which denied debtor's request to limit certain provisions of their Chapter 11 Plan.
Publication Date: 2023-03-28
Practice Area: Employment Litigation
Industry: Financial Services and Banking
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Dennis Dizon, pro se plaintiff.
for defendant: Kaan Ekiner, Cozen O’Connor, Wilmington DE for defendant.
Case Number: D70181
The court granted defendant's motion to compel arbitration on the basis that the arbitration agreement was clear and unambiguous. Although plaintiff argued that the agreement was unconscionable as it was signed as a precondition to his employment, the court disagreed and pointed out that courts routinely enforce arbitration agreements that are a precondition to employment.
Publication Date: 2022-11-08
Practice Area: Trademarks
Industry: Manufacturing
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Dominick T. Gattuso, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Paul Tanck, Neal McLaughlin, Alston & Bird LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Edward F. Maluf, Jeremy A. Cohen, Owen R. Wolfe, Jeremy Schachter, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: 21-1162 (MN)
Motion to transfer venue granted where alleged conduct took place nationally and defendant's preferred forum was much more convenient for both parties, while the current court had a substantially more congested docket.
Publication Date: 2022-10-18
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Biotechnology
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Daniel M. Silver, Alexandra M. Joyce, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Leigh J. Martinson, Keith Toms, Jill Mello, Ph.D., Wyley S. Proctor, McCarter & English, LLP, Boston, MA; Michael A. Albert, Eric J. Rutt, Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C., Boston, MA; Edward R. Reines, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Redwood Shores, CA for plaintiffs.
for defendant: David E. Moore, Bindu A. Palapura, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; David Bilsker, Andrew Naravage, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, San Francisco, CA; Anne Toker, James E. Baker, Anastasia M. Fernands, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, New York, NY; Jeffrey C. Wu, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Salt Lake City, UT for defendants.
Case Number: 18-1019 (MN)
Renewed judgment as a matter of law in patent infringement case denied where jury heard sufficient evidence to support a finding that defendants' products satisfied the construed or plain meanings of the claim limitations of the patents-in-suit, and where defendants admitted to knowledge of the patents and the potential for infringement.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors:
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2022-10-11
Practice Area: Antitrust
Industry: Federal Government | Food and Beverage
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Laura Hatcher, Shamoor Anis, United States Attorney’s Office, Wilmington, DE; Brian Hanna, Jonathan Y. Mincer, Jenigh Garrett, Jill Ptacek, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC for plaintiff.
for defendant: Jack Blumenfeld, Brian Egan, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Lawrence Buterman, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY; Amanda Reeves, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC; Elyse M. Greenwald, Latham & Watkins LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Daniel K. Hogan, Daniel C. Kerrick, Hogan McDaniel, Wilmington, DE; Peter J. Schwingler, Stinson LLP, Minneapolis, MN; Kelly E. Farnan, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Amanda L. Wait, Vic Domen, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Washington, DC; Darryl Wade Anderson, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Houston, TX; Christine A. Varney, David R. Marriott, Peter T. Parbur, Timothy G. Cameron, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: 21-1644 (MN)
Court denied a request by plaintiff to enjoin an acquisition of a sugar company the Government argued would result in a monopoly of the sugar market in the southeastern United States. The court reviewed evidence from trial noting that the markets for industrial consumers were different from retail consumers, thus broadening the base and the market. The court further found that plaintiff's argument was undermined by the fact that they control the sugar supply within the United States.
Publication Date: 2022-10-11
Practice Area: Constitutional Law
Industry: Consumer Products | State and Local Government
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Bradley P. Lehman, Gellert Scali Busenkell & Brown LLC, Wilmington, DE; Edward Paltzik, Joshpe Mooney Paltzik LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Patricia A. Davis, Kenneth L. Wan, Andrew R. Fletcher, Deputy Attorneys General, State of Delaware, Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE for defendant.
Case Number: 21-1523 (MN)
Plaintiffs were granted preliminary injunctive relief on state criminal laws that prohibited the manufacture and possession of unserialized firearms and firearm components when such firearms and components were lawfully acquired and manufactured by individuals, as such restrictions violated Second Amendment rights.
Publication Date: 2022-09-06
Practice Area: Trademarks
Industry: Distribution and Wholesale | Manufacturing
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Dominick T. Gattuso, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Paul Tanck, Neal McLaughlin, Alston & Bird LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Edward F. Maluf, Jeremy A. Cohen, Owen R. Wolfe, Jeremy Schachter, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, New York, NY for defendant.
Case Number: D69945
Defendant in trademark infringement action was subject to specific personal jurisdiction where it actively undertook sales of infringing goods into the jurisdiction, even though such sales only represented a small fraction of defendant's overall revenue.
Publication Date: 2022-08-23
Practice Area: Bankruptcy
Industry: Entertainment and Leisure
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys: For plaintiff: R. Crain Martin, Matthew S. Sama, DLA Piper LLP (US), Wilmington, DE; Brett Ingerman, DLA Piper LLP (US), Baltimore, MD; Rachel Ehrlich Albanese, DLA Piper LLP (US), New York, NY for appellant.
for defendant: Robert S. Chapman, Sauer & Wagner LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Adam G. Landis, Kerri K. Mumford, Landis Rath & Cobb LLP, Wilmington, DE for appellee.
Case Number: D69931
Bankruptcy court correctly interpreted asset purchase agreement as entitling affiliate to payment on his participation interest where APA expressly identified the interest as a permitted lien that purchaser remained subject to, and thus the broader, general exclusion of obligations to debtor's affiliates did not control.
Publication Date: 2022-08-23
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Gregory R. Booker, Robert M. Oakes, Douglas E. McCann, Fish & Richardson P.C., Wilmington, DE; Corrin N. Drakulich, Christina D. Brown-Marshall, Dexter S. Whitley, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Atlanta, GA; Karrie Wheatley, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Houston, TX; Elizabeth M. Flanagan, Deanna Reichel, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Minneapolis, MN; Jonathan E. Singer, Fish & Richardson, P.C., San Diego, CA; Satish Chintapalli, Chintapalli Law Firm, PLLC, Cary, NC for plaintiff.
for defendant: Timothy Devlin, Peter A. Mazur, Neil A. Benchell, Stephanie Berger, Robert Kiddie, Devlin Law Firm LLC, Wilmington, DE for defendant.
Case Number: D69932
After defendant admitted that its product met the limitations of the patents in suit, the court found it liable for infringement after defendant presented insufficient evidence to prove that the patents in suit were invalid as anticipated or obvious under the prior art.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read