• NuVasive, Inc. v. Miles

    Publication Date: 2019-09-11
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
    Industry: Health Care | Manufacturing
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Philip Trainer, Jr. and Aaron P. Sayers, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Rachel B. Cowen, Michael J. Sheehan and Emory D. Moore, Jr., McDermott Will & Emery, Chicago, IL; Christopher W. Cardwell, Gullet, Sanford, Robinson & Martin, Nash-ville, TN for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Philip A. Rovner and Jonathan A. Choa, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Micha Danzig, Eric J. Eastham and Paul M. Huston, Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo, P.C., San Diego, CA for defendant.

    Case Number: D68699

    Although the parties' employment contract contained a choice of law provision in favor of Delaware, another state's public policy disfavored restraints on trade, so that state had a materially greater interest than Delaware with respect to the contract's non-solicitation and non-compete provisions.

  • Kotler v. Shipman Assoc., LLC

    Publication Date: 2019-09-04
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
    Industry: Consumer Products
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: A. Thompson Bayliss, Adam K. Schulman and Daniel J. McBride, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Steve Wolosky and Renée M. Zaytsev, Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Blake Rohrbacker, Kevin M. Gallagher, John M. O’Toole and Ryan D. Konstanzer, Richards Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilming-ton, DE for defendant.

    Case Number: D68691

    The parties failed to reach a meeting of the minds regarding a material term of their contract, so the court decided in favor of defendant on plaintiff's breach of contract claim.

  • REI Holdings, LLC v. Lienclear 0001, LLC

    Publication Date: 2019-08-28
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Real Estate
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Noreika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joseph B. Cicero, Gregory E. Stuhlman and Stephanie H. Dallaire, Chipman Brown Cicero & Cole, LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Andrew L. Cole of LeClairRyan, PLLC, Wilmington, DE for defendants.

    Case Number: D68683

    Plaintiff adequately alleged a breach of contract claim against some of the defendants, but the court granted defendants' mo-tions dismissing the remainder of the claims.

  • Vatidis v. Trimble, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2019-08-28
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
    Industry: Software
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Noreika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Todd C. Schiltz, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Wilmington, DE; Paul R. Mastrocola, Andrea L. Marti and Michael A. DeIulis, Burns & Levinson LLP, Boston, MA; Scott R. Haiber, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Baltimore, MD; Pieter Van Tol, Hogan Lovells US LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Joel Friedlander, Christopher M. Foulds and Christopher P. Quinn, Friedlander & Gorris, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Teresa H. Michaud, Baker & McKenzie LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendant.

    Case Number: D68685

    Defendant failed to meet the heightened pleading standard with regard to its fraud counterclaims, and it did not establish standing to pursue a claim under foreign copyright law.

  • Hill v. LW Buyer, LLC

    Publication Date: 2019-08-14
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: C. Barr Flinn, Emily V. Burton and Elisabeth S. Bradley,Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Nicholas M. Oertel, Richard C. Kraus and James B. Jensen, Jr., Foster Swift Collins & Smith PC, Lansing, MI for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: William J. Lafferty, Kevin M. Coen and Jarrett W. Horowitz, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Craig S. Primis and K. Winn Allen, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, DC for defendant.

    Case Number: D68665

    The court granted summary judgment on buyer's claims for indemnification of tax payments because those claims were not ripe for adjudication.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Florida Construction Defect Litigation 2022

    Authors: Gary L. Brown

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Windy City Inv. Holdings, LLC v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass'n of Am.

    Publication Date: 2019-08-07
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: David E. Ross and Eric D. Selden, Ross, Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; K. Winn Allen, Kasdin M. Mitchell, Holly R. Trogdon and Rebecca W. Forrestal, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, DC for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Michael A. Pittenger, Jennifer C. Wasson and Tyler J. Leavengood, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Mary Eaton, Zeh Ekono and Le-Ahn Bui, Wilkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, New York, NY for defendant.

    Case Number: D68661

    Plaintiff adequately stated its claims for declaratory relief as to an earn-out provision in the parties' contract, and plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of a clause allowing access to books and records.

  • Western Standard, LLC v. SourceHOV Holdings, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2019-08-07
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
    Industry: E-Commerce | Software
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Rudolf Koch, Matthew W. Murphy and Anthony M. Calvano, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Samuel J. Lieberman, Sadis & Goldberg LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: T. Brad Davey, Matthew F. Davis and Kody M. Sparks, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.

    Case Number: D68660

    Contractual ambiguity prevented the court from dismissing plaintiff's claim for enforcement of an earn-out provision.

  • Cipla, Ltd. v. Amgen Inc.

    Publication Date: 2019-08-07
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes | Patent Litigation
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Judge Shwartz
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: D68655

    Preliminary injunction properly denied where party unlikely to prevail on its breach of contract claim because terms of settlement agreement permitted the other party to launch a generic equivalent without interference from the moving party.

  • V&M Aerospace LLC v. V&M Co.

    Publication Date: 2019-07-31
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
    Industry: Chemicals and Materials
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge LeGrow
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Catherine A. Gaul and Hayley M. Lenahan, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Peter L. Loh and Davis G. Mosmeyer, III, Fo-ley & Lardner LLP, Dallas, TX for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Robert A. Penza and Christina M. Belitz, Polsinelli PC, Wilmington, DE; Michael Stiles, StilesPomeroy LLP, Pasadena, CA for defendant.

    Case Number: D68653

    The plain language of the parties' asset purchase agreement permitted one party to offset its payments to the other, but the reasonableness of attorney fees could not be determined on summary judgment.

  • Tibco Software Inc. v. Mediamath, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2019-07-24
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Scott
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Josiah R. Wolcott, Connolly Gallagher LLP, Newark, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Matthew P. Ward and Nicholas T. Verna, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Wilmington, DE; Usher Winslett, Winslett Stud-nicky McCormick & Bomser LLP, New York, NY for defendant.

    Case Number: D68645

    The court concluded defendant's interpretation of a contract clause was not reasonable, because it would have relieved de-fendant from liability for its own failure to comply with the terms of the contract.