Filter This View

  • AgroFresh Inc. v. Essentiv LLC

    Publication Date: 2019-06-19
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Agriculture
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Noreika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: D68598

    Stay of patent infringement case granted where Patent Trial and Appeals Board ruled that claims of a patent-in-suit were unpatentable and parties anticipated appeal of that decision, since resolution of that matter could result in simplification of the issues on trial.

  • S.I.SV.EL. Societa Italiana Per Lo Sviluppo Dell' Elettronica S.P.A. v. Rhapsody Int'l Inc.

    Publication Date: 2019-06-19
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: E-Commerce
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Burke
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Timothy Devlin, Devlin Law Firm LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: David E. Moore, Bindu A. Palapura and Stephanie E. O'Byrne, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE for defend-ants Rhapsody Int'l and Spotify USA Inc. Patrick Bageant, Hollystone Law, Boise, ID for defendant Rhapsody Int'l. Stefani E. Shanberg and Michael J. Guo, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, CA for defendant Spotify USA Inc.
    Case Number: D68605

    Defendants were not entitled to summary judgment, because genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the patent involved an inventive concept.

  • Ultravision Tech., LLC v. RMG Networks Holding Corp.

    Publication Date: 2019-05-22
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Advertising | Electronics
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Connolly
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen B. Brauerman and Sara E. Bussiere, Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Alfred R. Fabricant, Lawrence C. Drucker, Peter Lambrianakos, Vincent J. Rubino, III, Joseph M. Mercadante and Alessandra C. Messing, Brown Rudnick LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brett Charhon, Martin C. Robson and Anthony M. Garza, Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza, PLLC, Dallas, TX for defendant.
    Case Number: D68473

    The court exercised its discretion to transfer this patent infringement action to a federal district court in another state for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and because neither of the parties had their headquarters or operations in Delaware.

  • Fo2GO LLC v. KeepItSafe, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2019-05-01
    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, Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC, Wilmington, DE; David R. Bennett, Direction IP Law, Chicago, IL, for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Melanie K. Sharp, James L. Higgins, and Michelle M. Ovanesian, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Guy Ruttenberg and Michael Eshaghian, Ruttenberg IP Law, P.C., Los Angeles, CA, for defendant.
    Case Number: D68542

    Dismissal of direct, contributory, and induced infringement claims denied to the extent plaintiff alleged defendant provided its employees with all the components of the infringing system and that it provided defendant's parent with notice of infringement in plaintiff's original complaint against the parent.

  • TQ Delta, LLC v. 2Wire, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2019-05-01
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    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; Peter J. McAndrews, Thomas J. Wimbiscus, James P. Murphy, Paul W. McAndrews, Anna M. Targowska and Rajendra Chiplunkar, McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd., Chicago, IL for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Jody C. Barillare, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brett Schuman, Rachel M. Walsh and Monte M.F. Cooper, Goodwin Procter LLP, San Francisco for defendant.
    Case Number: D68548

    In this patent infringement action, the court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment of no invalidity as to patent eli-gibility and indefiniteness, but it denied the remainder of the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Georgia Construction Law Handbook 2024

    Authors: T. BART GARY, JAKE CARROLL

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Takeda Pharm. U.S.A., Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2019-04-24
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Philip A. Rovner and Jonathan A. Choa, Potter Anderson Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; William F. Cavanaugh, Irena Royzman, Jacob F. Siegel, Eric B. LaPre and Sara A. Arrow, Patterson Belnap Webb & Tyler LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Kelly E. Farnan and Blake Rohrbacher, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Robert W. Trenchard, Jane M. Love and Mark H. Mixon, Jr., Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY for de-fendant.
    Case Number: D68539

    An alleged patent infringer had an adequate remedy at law in the form of a license defense in foreign patent litigation, so the Delaware court did not have subject matter jurisdiction in this declaratory relief matter.

  • Deere & Co. v. AGCO Corp.

    Publication Date: 2019-03-06
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Agriculture | Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Connolly
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Adam W. Poff and Pilar G. Kraman, Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, DE; Richard L. Rainey, Kevin B. Collins, R. Jason Fowler, Jay I. Alexander, Daniel E. Valencia, and Nicholas L. Envoy, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Jeremy A. Tigan, Anthony D. Raucci, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael J. Summersgill and Jordan L. Hirsch, Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Door LLP, Boston, MA; Mary V. Sooter, Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Door LLP, Denver, CO; Heath A. Brooks and Michael E. Wolin, Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Door LLP, Washington, DC for defendants.
    Case Number: D68478

    Claim of willful infringement sufficiently pled where alleged post-suit infringement meant that defendant would know or should have known of substantial risk of infringement.

  • Wi-Lan Inc. v. Sharp Elec. Corp.

    Publication Date: 2019-03-06
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    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; Monte M. Bond, Jeffrey R. Bragalone, Patrick J. Conroy, Terry Saad and James R. Perkins, Bragalone Conroy P.C., Dallas, TX for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld and Stephen J. Kraftschik, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Gianni Cutri, Joel Merkin, Michael W. De Vries, Adam R. Alper, James Beard and Jared Bárcenas, Kirk-land & Ellis LLP, Chicago, IL, Los Angeles, CA, San Francisco, CA, New York, NY for defendant Sharp Elec. Corp. Pilar Gabrielle Kraman, Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Rex Hwang, Stanley M. Gibson and Jessica Newman, Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendant Vizio, Inc.
    Case Number: D68455

    The court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants in this patent infringement matter, because plain-tiff was unable to provide admissible evidence of direct infringement.

  • Citrix Sys., Inc. v. AVI Networks, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2019-02-27
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Douglas E. McCann and Robert M. Oaks, Fish & Richardson P.C., Wilmington, DE; Ruffin B. Cordell and Indranil Mukerji, Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, DC; Adam J. Kessel, Fish & Richardson P.C., Boston, MA; Elizabeth Brenckman , Fish & Richardson P.C., New York. NY; John-Paul Fryckman, Fish & Richardson P.C., San Diego, CA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: David E. Moore, Bindu A. Palapura, and Stephanie E. O'Byrne, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Josh Krevitt and Brian A. Rosenthal, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY; Y. Ernest Hsin, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, San Francisco, CA; Brian K. Andrea, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC for defendant.
    Case Number: D68470

    Patent claims were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter where they merely attempted to claim the use of dynamic response times, as opposed to static response times, to improve the determination of availability of network service, without demonstrating how such processes were unique to or improved the functionality of computer networks.

  • Baggage Airline Guest Serv., Inc. v. Roadie, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2019-01-23
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Cargo and Shipping | Transportation
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Neal Belgam and Eve Ormerod, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE; Stefan V. Stein, Mayanne Downs, Jason Zimmerman and Cole Carlson, Gray Robinson P.A., Orlando, FL for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Pilar G. Kraman, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Edward A. Pennington, John P. Moy, John P. Pen-nington and Darlene K. Tzou, Smith, Gambrell & Russell LLP, Washington, DC for defendant.
    Case Number: D68434

    Patent claims for a baggage delivery system involved an abstract idea and did not contain any inventive concept.