• AstraZenica AB v. Mylan Pharm. Inc.

    Publication Date: 2019-11-06
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Connolly
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael P. Kelly, Daniel M. Silver, and Alexandra M. Joyce, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Gary M. Rubman, Douglas A. Behrens, and Anna Q. Han, Covington & Burlington LLP, Washington, DC for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Frederick L. Cottrell, III, Jason J. Rawnsley, and Alexandra M. Ewing, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Shannon M. Bloodworth, Perkins Coie LLP, Washington, DC; David L. Anstaett and Emily J. Greb, Perkins Coie LLP, Madison, WI for defendants.

    Case Number: D68758

    Court transferred venue where one party was not a domicilary of the jurisdiction and there was no basis to impute venue from the resident co-defendant under a theory of successor-in-interest or agency, and factors weighed in favor of transfer of the entire litigation.

  • Vectura Ltd. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC

    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.

  • Mfg. Res. Int'l, Inc. v. Civiq Smartscapes, LLC

    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.

  • Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc.

    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.

  • Vifor Fresenius Med. Care Renal Pharma Ltd. v. Lupin Atlantis Holdings SA

    Publication Date: 2019-09-18
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian E. Farnan and Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Raymond N. Nimrod, Steven C. Cherny, Matthew A. Traupman, Lauren N. Martin and Nancy Zhang, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY, Boston, Ma and San Francisco, CA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: John W. Shaw, Karen K. Keller and Nathan R. Hoeschen, Shaw Keller LLP, Wilmington, DE; John C. Phillips, Jr. and David A. Bilson, Phillips, Goldman, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Anuj K. Wadhwa, Rakoczy Molino Mazzochi Siwik, LLP, Chicago, IL; Scott J. Bornstein, Richard C. Pettus, Michael H. Imbacuan, Julie P. Bookbinder and Johnathan R. Wise, Green-berg Traurig, LLP, New York, NY and Philadelphia, PA for defendants.

    Case Number: D68709

    In this claim construction matter, the court determined that the disputed terms were not indefinite, because the specification and prosecution history provided sufficient guidance to a person of ordinary skill in the art.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Texas Personal Automobile Insurance Policy 2020

    Authors: Janet K. Colaneri

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Alarm.com, Inc. v. SecureNet Tech., LLC

    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.

  • Arendi S.A.R.L. v. LG Elec., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2019-09-04
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Neal C. Belgam, Eve H. Ormerod, and Beth A. Swadley, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins, LLP, Wilmington, DE, Stephen Susman, Seth Ard, and Max Straus, Susman Godfrey, LLP, New York, NY, John Lahad, Susman Godfrey, LLP, Houston, TX for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Jeremy D. Anderson, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Wilmington, DE, Steven R. Katz and Matthew C. Berntsen, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Boston, MA, Denise S. Kraft, Brian A. Biggs, and Erin E. Larson, DLA Piper LLP (US), Wilmington, DE, Mark D. Fowler, Christine K. Corbett, and Summer Torrez, DLA Piper LLP (US), East Palo Alto, CA, Robert C. Williams and Kevin C. Hamilton, DLA Piper LLP (US), San Diego, CA, Richard K. Herrmann, Mary B. Matterer, and Kenneth L. Dorsney, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE, Brian C. Riopelle and David E. Finkelson, McGuireWoods LLP, Richmond, VA, Rachelle Thompson, McGuireWoods LLP, Raleigh, NC, Jack B. Blumenfeld and Jeremy A. Tigan, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE, Heidi L. Keefe and Lowell D. Mead, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA, DeAnna Allen and Phillip E. Morton, Cooley LLP, Washington, DC, David E. Moore, Bindu A. Palapura, and Stephanie E. O’Byrne, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE, Robert W. Unikel, Robert Laurenzi, Michelle Marek Figueiredo, and John Cotiguala, Paul Hastings LLP, Chicago, IL, Rodger D. Smith, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE, Jeffri A. Kaminski and Justin E. Pierce, Venable LLP, Washington, DC, Jack B. Blumenfeld and Anthony David Raucci, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE, Jeffri A. Kaminsi, Venable LLP, Washington, DC for defendants.

    Case Number: D68687

    Where patent claims failed to provide sufficient structure for a term or where a POS would not be on sufficient notice to know which algorithms were claimed by a patent, such claims were indefinite.

  • 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.

  • AOS Holding Co. v. Bradford White Corp.

    Publication Date: 2019-07-03
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Hardware
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: John C. Phillips, Jr. and David A. Bilson, Phillips, Goldman, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A., Wilmington, DE; S. Edward Sarskas, Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, Milwaukee, WI; Kenneth M. Albridge III, Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, Madison, WI for plaintiffs
    for defendant: Andrew J. Koopman and Christopher H. Blaszkowski, RatnerPrestia, Wilmington, DE; Benjamin E. Leace, RatnerPrestia, King of Prussia, PA for defendant.

    Case Number: D68615

    Patent claim was not struck for indefiniteness when a person of ordinary skill in the art would sufficiently understand how to measure the term in the context of the claimed invention.

  • TC Tech. LLC v. Sprint Corp.

    Publication Date: 2019-07-03
    Practice Area: Expert Witnesses | Patent Litigation
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kelly E. Farnan and Katharine L. Mowery, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Lawrence J. Gotts, Saswat Mis-ra, Kevin L. Mallen and Gabriel S. Gross, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC, New York, NY, and Menlo Park, CA; Stephanie N. Solomon, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY; David S. Benyacar and Daniel L. Reisner, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Shanti M. Katona and Christina M. Belitz, Polsinelli PC, Wilmington, DE; Robert Reckers, David Morehan, Christine A. Guas-tello, Jordan T. Bergsten, Colman D. McCarthy and Thomas M. Patton, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Houston, TX and Kansas City, MO for defendants.

    Case Number: D68620

    The court granted several aspects of the parties' various motions to limit expert testimony where the experts did not tie their opinions to the facts of the case.