Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
272 results for '* topic:"Patent Litigation"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
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.
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.
Publication Date: 2018-01-03
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Hardware | Manufacturing | Software
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 and Rajendra A. Chiplunkar, McAndrews, Held & Mallow, Chicago, IL, attorneys for plaintiff
for defendant: Colm F. Connolly and Jody Barillare, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brett M. Schuman, Rachel M. Walsh, and David L. Simon, Goodwin Proctor LLP, San Francisco, CA; James S. Green, Sr. and Jared T. Green, Seitz Van Ogtrop & Green, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Kenneth L. Dorsney, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for defendants.
Case Number: D67992
Patent claims not indefinite where functional language tied to the capabilities of a device, rather than describing functional steps in isolation, such that a POSA would understand that infringement would occur from use of an infringing device.
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.
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.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Daniel A. Cohen, Joshua Feinstein
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
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.
Publication Date: 2017-11-08
Practice Area: Intellectual Property | Patent Litigation
Industry: Biotechnology
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Stark
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kelly E. Farnan, Christine D. Haynes, James F. Hurst, Patricia A. Carson, Christopher T. Jagoe and Aa-ron D. Resetarits for plaintiff
for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Brian P. Egan, Michael A. Morin, David P. Frazier, Emily K. Sauter, Roger J. Chin and Michael R. Seringhaus for defendants.
Case Number: D67932
The court construed disputed terms in this patent infringement matter involving pharmaceuticals.
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
Publication Date: 2017-09-06
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Electronics | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge:
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: D67855
Court granted parties' proposed claim constructions where their proposals were supported by the intrinsic records of the patents-in
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
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read