• Kaavo, Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-07-04
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stamatios Stamoulis, Richard C. Weinblatt, Sheekhar Vyas, James T. Bailey and Gregory Pollaro for plaintiff
    for defendant: Karen Jacobs, Megan E. Delliger, Alan M. Fisch, R. William Sigler, Jeffrey Saltman and Joseph Edell for defendants.

    Case Number: D68203

    Plaintiff's claims were not patent eligible because they were directed to an abstract idea and nothing in the claims represented an inventive concept.

  • Integra LifeSciences Corp. v. HyperBranch Med. Tech., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-06-20
    Practice Area: Expert Witnesses | Patent Litigation
    Industry: Biotechnology
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Karen L. Pascale, James L. Higgins, Robert F. Altherr, Jr., Christopher B. Roth, Jason S. Shull and John P. Iwanicki for plaintiffs
    for defendant: Thomas C. Grimm, Jeremy A. Tigan, Stephen J. Kraftschik, Jonathan G. Graves, Adam M. Pivovar, James P. Hughes, Stephen C. Crenshaw, Lisa F. Schwier, Nicholas G. Lockhart and Naina Soni for de-fendant.

    Case Number: D68187

    The parties were not entitled to exclude expert testimony because the opinions were reasonably reliable, and summary judgment was proper as to the issue of whether a two-player market existed.

  • TQ Delta, LLC v. Zyxel Communications, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-05-23
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Electronics
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Peter J. McAndrews, Paul W. McAndrews, David Prange for TQ Delta, LLC
    for defendant: Kenneth L. Dorsney, Scott Burnett Smith, Ross Barton and Garland T. Stephens for Adtran Inc. and Zyxel Communications Inc.

    Case Number: D68156

    This claim construction matter involved communication system patents relating to impulse noise management during initialization, packet retransmission and memory sharing.

  • Valinge Innovation AB v. Halstead New England Corp.

    Publication Date: 2018-05-23
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Chemicals and Materials
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Adam W. Poff, Pilar G. Kraman, Laura Masurovsky, Sydney R. Kestle and Daniel C. Cooley for plaintiff
    for defendant: Denise S. Kraft, Brian A. Biggs, Nicholas G. Papastavros, Michael Strapp, Melissa Reinckens, Peter Maggiore and Aaron Fountain for defendants.

    Case Number: D68157

    The court's claim construction in this case related to technologies for manufacturing and installing flooring products.

  • Nexeon Ltd. v. EaglePicher Tech. LLC

    Publication Date: 2018-05-23
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Electronics
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Mary Matterer, Stephen R. Carden, Ann C. Palma and James V. Suggs for plaintiff
    for defendant: Thomas C. Grimm, Jeremy A. Tigan and Jennifer Hayes for defendants.

    Case Number: D68154

    The court engaged in claim construction of multiple terms associated with fabricating silicon-based fibers and particles for use in rechargeable lithium ion batteries.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Texas Legal Malpractice & Lawyer Discipline 2024

    Authors: Charles F. Herring, JR, Jason M. Panzer, Leah Turner

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Evonik Degussa GMBH v. Materia, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-05-02
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Chemicals and Materials
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Hillman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Eric James Evain, Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., Wilmington, DE; R. Eric Hutz, Rudolph E. Hutz, and Ryan P. Cox, Reed Smith LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for plaintiff
    for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld and Thomas C. Grimm, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for defendant.

    Case Number: D68118

    Jury verdict in favor of defendant on issue of willfulness proper where record contained sufficient evidence for jury to conclude defendant did not discover adverse nature of plaintiffs patent during the period of its infringement.

  • Evonik Degussa GMBH v. Materia, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-04-25
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Chemicals and Materials
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Hillman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Eric James Evain, Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., Wilmington, DE; R. Eric Hutz, Rudolph E. Hutz, and Ryan P. Cox, Reed Smith LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for plaintiff
    for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld and Thomas C. Grimm, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for defendant.

    Case Number: D68118

    Jury verdict in favor of defendant on issue of willfulness proper where record contained sufficient evidence for jury to conclude defendant did not discover adverse nature of plaintiffs patent during the period of its infringement.

  • Bayer Intellectual Prop, GMBH v. Cap IM Supply, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-04-11
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jack Blumenfeld, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Gary H. Levin, Stephanie M. Papastephanou, Timothy J. Doyle, and Samuel A. McMahon, Baker Hostetler LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Irene H. Hudson, Baker Hostetler LLP, New York, NY, attorneys for plaintiffs
    for defendant: John W. Shaw, Karen E. Keller, and David M. Fry, Shaw Keller LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for defendant.

    Case Number: D68102

    Infringement claim under doctrine of equivalents not precluded where patent claim was comprising and did not exclude compositions not explicitly claimed in the specification.

  • Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. v. Power Integrations, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-03-28
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Hardware
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: John G. Day and Andrew C. Mayo, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Blair M. Jacobs, Christina A. Ondrick, and Patrick J. Stafford, Paul Hastings LLP, Washington, DC, attorneys for plaintiffs
    for defendant: Joseph B. Warden, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Frank E. Scherkenbach, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Boston, MA; Howard G. Pollack and Michael R. Headly, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Redwood City, CA, attorneys for defendant.

    Case Number: D68087

    Final judgment denied where jury instruction overruled on appeal of related case between the parties, such that the potential for the jury to reach a different result with correct instructions meant that the instructions were plain error and necessitated a new trial.

  • Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Watson Labs., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-03-28
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Sleet
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: D68086

    Claimed composition not invalid as obvious where prior art would not have directed person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed composition, and where the exponential of potential compositions meant that a POSA would not have been naturally directed to the claimed composition.