Filter This View

  • President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Micron Tech., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-02-07
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Education | Electronics
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Douglas D. Herrmann, M. Duncan Grant, James H.S. Levine, William D. Belanger, Gregory D. Len, Maia H. Harris, Griffin N. Mesmer and Ryan C. Deck for plaintiff
    for defendant: Travis S. Hunter, Frederick L. Cottrel, III, Jared Bobrow and J. Jason Lang for defendant.
    Case Number: D68036

    The court engaged in claim construction relating to terms involved in patents for microelectronics.

  • Amgen Inc. v. Alkem Labs. Ltd.

    Publication Date: 2018-01-31
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Sleet
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: D68024

    Motion for judgment on the pleadings in patent infringement case denied where there was a factual dispute over prosecution history and over scope of equivalents to determine whether prosecution history estoppel barred infringement by doctrine of equivalents.

  • Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-01-31
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Philip A. Rovner, Jonathan A. Choa, and Alan Silverstein, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Paul J. Andre, Lisa Kobialka, James R. Hannah, and Hannah Lee, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP, Menlo Park, CA; Aaron M. Frankel, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP, New York, NY, attorneys for plaintiff
    for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld and Stephen J. Kraftschik, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael A. Tomasulo, Gino Cheng, David K. Lin, and Joe S. Netikosol, Winston & Strawn LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Michael M. Murray, Winston & Strawn LLP, New York, NY; David P. Enzminger, Winston & Strawn, Menlo Park, CA; Dan K. Webb and Kathleen B. Barry, Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL; Thomas M. Dunham and Andrew R. Soomer, Winston & Strawn LLP, Washington, DC; Krista M. Enns, Winston & Strawn LLP, San Francisco, CA, attorneys for defendants.
    Case Number: D68022

    Patent term computer network included both multiple physical computers and multiple processes executing on a single computer, where intrinsic evidence demonstrated dependent claims which described computer network as involving processes on a single computer.

  • Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.

    Publication Date: 2018-01-24
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Douglas E. McCann, Martina Tyreus Hufnal, John S. Goetz, Brian D. Coggio, Ahmed J. Davis, Min Woo Park, Sarah M. Cork, Matt Colvin, D. Michael Underhill, Jon R. Knight, William D. Marsillo, Alex Potter, Bill Ward and Martin Ellison for plaintiffs
    for defendant: Arthur G. Connolly III, Ryan P. Newell, Mary Akhimien, Raymond N. Nimrod, Brian P. Biddinger, Gregory D. Bonifield, John P. Galanek, Amanda K. Antons and Matthew Traupman for defendant.
    Case Number: D68021

    The court engaged in claim construction in this patent litigation matter involving ten patents relating to phar-maceuticals for treating diabetes and pen-type injectors used to administer the drug.

  • Noven Pharm., Inc v. Actavis Lab. UT, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-01-17
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jack B. Blumenfeld and Stephen J. Kraftschik, Morris, Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Liane M. Peterson and Ryan A. Schmid, Foley & Lardner LLP, Washington, DE; Steven J. Rizzi, Ramy E. Hanna, and Jayita Guhaniyogi, Foley & Lardner LLP, New York NY; Rebecca J. Pirozzolo-Mellowes, Foley & Lardner LLP, Milwaukee, WI, attorneys for plaintiff and third-party defendant
    for defendant: Steven J. Fineman and Katharine L. Mowery, Richards, Layton & Finger P.A., Wilmington, DE; James K. Stronski, Jacob Z. Zambrizycki, Anne E.H. Li, and Preetha Chakrabarti, Crowell & Moring LLP, New York, NY; Chiemi D. Suzuki, Crowell & Moring LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Craig P. Lytle, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, DC, attorneys for defendant.
    Case Number: D68008

    Plaintiff was barred by prosecution history estoppel from asserting infringement under doctrine of equivalents where limitation amended to claim was added specifically in response to reject to distinguish claim from prior art.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Constangy’s Field Guide to The Americans with Disabilities Act and Its Amendments 2014

    Authors: Michael D. Malfitano

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-01-03
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Entertainment and Leisure | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Philip A. Rovner, Jonathan A. Choa, Paul J. Andre, Lisa Kobialka, James R. Hannah, Hannah Lee and Aaron M. Frankel for plaintiff
    for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Stephen J. Kraftschik, Michael A. Tomasulo, Gino Cheng, David K. Lin, Joe S. Netikosol, Michael M. Murray, David P. Enzminger, Dan K. Webb and Kathleen B. Barry for defendants.
    Case Number: D67993

    The court construed various terms in this patent litigation relating to computer technology.

  • Alex Is The Best, LLC v. Blu Prods., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2017-12-06
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen B. Brauerman and Sara E. Bussiere, Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE, attorneys for plaintiff
    for defendant: Dennis J. Butler and John D. Simmons, Panitch Schwarze Belisaro & Nadel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Adam W. Poff and Robert M. Vrana, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jack B. Blumenfeld and Stephen J. Kraftschik, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; John C. Phillips and David A. Bilson, Phillips Goldman McLaughlin & Hall, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Chad S.C. Stover, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Chicago, IL; Todd G. Vare and Jeffrey M. Barron, Barnes & Thornburg, LLP, Indianapolis, IN, attorneys for defendant.
    Case Number: D67958

    Court rejected plaintiffs assertion that patent claims of primary mode of communication and another available mode of communication had their plain meanings, adopting constructions that comported with the parties understanding that the claimed device had to designate a first mode of communication on start-up, and would use another mode when the primary one was unavailable.

  • Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Sun Pharm. Indus. Ltd.

    Publication Date: 2017-12-06
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Maryellen Noreika, and Megan Elizabeth Dellinger, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Gerald J. Flattman, Jr., Evan D. Diamond, Vanessa Y. Yen, and Lucas L. Kressel, Paul Hastings LLP, New York, NY, attorneys for plaintiffs
    for defendant: Kelly E. Farnan and Nicole K. Pedi, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Huiya Wu and Brian J. Robinson, Goodwin Proctor LLP, New York, NY; Nicholas K. Mitrokostas, Goodwin Proctor LLP, Boston, MA, attorneys for defendants.
    Case Number: D67960

    Court rejected defendants attempt to add negative limitations to terms in claim construction, in absence of evidence of patentees clear and unmistakable intent to disclaim the claim scope comprised by the proposed negative limitations.

  • Intl Bus. Mach. Corp. v. Groupon, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2017-11-29
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: David E. Moore, Bindu A. Palapura, and Stephanie E. O'Byrne, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; John M. Desmarais, Jon T. Hohenthaner, Karim Z. Oussayef, Laurie N. Stempler, and Robert C. Harrits, Desmarais LLP, New York, NY, attorneys for plaintiff
    for defendant: John G. Day and Andrew C. Mayo, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; J. David Hadden, Saina S. Shamilov, Phillip J. Haack, and Adam M. Lewin, Fenwick & West LLP, Mountain View, CA, attorneys for defendant.
    Case Number: D67952

    Patents-in-suit were not invalid due to being directed to patent-ineligible abstract ideas where the claims specifically described the architecture for improving the functionality of computer networks, rather than claiming data storage generally.

  • In re Nortel Networks, Inc., DEFAX Case No. D67858 (Del. Bank. Aug. 21, 2017), Gross, B.J. (88 pages).

    Publication Date: 2017-09-06
    Practice Area: Bankruptcy | Patent Litigation
    Industry: Software
    Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court of Delaware
    Judge:
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: D67858

    Extrinsic evidence relating to an ambiguous contract term indicated that the parties' licensing agreement included a royalty buy out for the lifetime of covered products, and use of the licensed tec