• Fetch Interactive Television LLC v. Touchstream Tech. Inc.

    Publication Date: 2019-01-16
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes | Intellectual Property
    Industry: Electronics | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Adam W. Poff, Tammy L. Mercer, and Paul J. Loughman, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Steven Morgans, Myers Billion LLP, Sioux Falls, SD for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Herbert W. Mondros, Margolis Edelstein, Wilmington, DE for defendants.

    Case Number: D68422

    Intellectual property licensor properly terminated agreement where licensee breached provision to take no action against or with third-party infringer by offering to sublicense IP, and then failed to comply with licensor's instructions to cure the breach.

  • iBio, Inc. v. Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft Zur Forderung Der Angewandten Forschung E.V.

    Publication Date: 2019-01-02
    Practice Area: Business Torts | Intellectual Property
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Montgomery-Reeves
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: David E. Ross and Eric D. Selden, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Reed S. Oslan, Mark Premo-Hopkins, Britt Cramer, and Allison McDonald, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago, IL; Inbal Hasbani and Kyla Jackson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: M. Duncan Grant, Christopher B. Chuff, James H.S. Levine, and Ellis E. Herington, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant.

    Case Number: D68406

    Complaint dismissed pursuant to doctrine of laches where plaintiff had inquiry notice defendant may have had a role in its subsidiary's breach of agreements with plaintiff, thereby precluding tolling of limitations period.

  • VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp.

    Publication Date: 2018-11-21
    Practice Area: Intellectual Property | Patent Litigation
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Connolly
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian E. Farnan and Michael J. Farman of Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Morgan Chu, Ben Hattenbach, Amy E. Proctor, Dominik Slusarczyk and Charlotte J. Wen of Irell & Manella LLP, Boston, MA, attorneys for plaintiff
    for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld and Jeremy A. Tigan of Morris, Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE Wil-liam F. Lee and Louis W. Tompros of Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Dorr LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Mark D. Selwyn and Amanda L Major of Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, at-torneys for defendant.

    Case Number: D68365

    Plaintiff's forum choice was entitled to paramount consideration, and little overlap existed between this case and another pending patent matter between the same parties in another jurisdiction.

  • Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-09-12
    Practice Area: Expert Witnesses | Intellectual Property | Patent Litigation
    Industry: E-Commerce | Software
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Philip A. Rovner, Jonathan A. Choa, Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Paul J. Andre, Lisa Kobialka, 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, Stephen J. Kraftschik, Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael A. Tomasulo, Gino Cheng, David K. Lin, Joe S. Netikosol, Winston & Strawn LLP, Los Angeles, CA; David P. Enzminger, Louis L. Campbell, Winston & Strawn LLP, Menlo Park, CA; Dan K. Webb, Kathleen B. Barry, Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL; Krista M. Enns, Winston & Strawn LLP, San Francisco, CA; Michael M. Murray, Anup K. Misra, Winston & Strawn LLP, New York, NY; Andrew R. Sommer, Thomas M. Dunham, Michael Woods, Paul N. Harold, Joseph S. Masullo, Winston & Strawn LLP, Washington, DC, attorneys for defendants.

    Case Number: D68278

    Defendant granted summary judgment of non-infringement where sale of game software did not amount to "making, using, or selling" accused game network.

  • Genedics, LLC v. Meta Co.

    Publication Date: 2018-09-05
    Practice Area: Intellectual Property | Patent Litigation
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Burke
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: David W. deBruin, The deBruin Firm, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Leslie L. Jacobs, Jr. and Gabriela I. Coman, Rubin and Rudman LLP, Washington, DC, attorneys for plaintiff
    for defendant: David E. Moore, Bindu A. Palapura, and Stephanie E. O'Byrne, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Craig Kaufman, Michael C. Ting, and Fatima Alloo, Techknowledge Law Group LLP, Redwood City, CA, attorneys for defendant.

    Case Number: D68271

    Motion to dismiss patent infringement complaint on grounds of non-patent-eligible subject matter denied where patent claims asserted sufficiently inventive concept overcoming obstacles of systems and processes by using existing components in more than conventional manner.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Chester County Court Rules 2024

    Authors:

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. v. ABS Capital Partners, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-06-27
    Practice Area: Contracts | Intellectual Property
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Philip A. Rovner, Jonathan A. Choa, and Alan R. Silverstein, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for plaintiff
    for defendant: Raymond J. DiCamillo, Chad M. Shandler, Matthew W. Murphy, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Steven F. Barley, Andrea W. Trento, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Baltimore, MD, attorneys for defendants.

    Case Number: D68190

    Misappropriation claim failed where only circumstantial evidence involved defendant's investment in competing business, an act it was permitted to do under the parties' agreements.

  • Elenza, Inc. v. Alcon Labs. Holding Corp.

    Publication Date: 2018-04-04
    Practice Area: Contracts | Intellectual Property
    Industry: Biotechnology
    Court: Delaware Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Seitz
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Timothy J. Simeone, Charles T. Kimmett, Walter E. Anderson, and John R. Grimm, Harris, Wilshire & Grannis LLP, Washington, DC; Andrew D. Cordo and F. Troupe Mickler IV, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for appellant
    for defendant: Heidi K. Hubbard, Daniel P. Shanahan, David Randall J. Riskin, Tamara A. Rubb, and Michelle L. Hood, Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, DC; Michael P. Kelly, Daniel M. Silver, and Benjamin P. Smyth, McCarter & English LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for appellees.

    Case Number: D68096

    Misappropriation of trade secrets claim properly denied where plaintiff failed to cite specific uses of its alleged trade secrets in any claimed misappropriation by defendant.

  • Dungee v. Davison Design & Dev., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-03-14
    Practice Area: Class Actions | Intellectual Property
    Industry: Consulting
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Sleet
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: D68072

    Enhancement multiplier on lodestar amount of attorneys fees and costs unnecessary where counsel billed industry-standard rates, and where delay in payment and outlay of costs was not so excessive as to warrant compensating counsel.

  • Plastic Omnium Advanced Innovation and Research v. Donghee America, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2017-11-22
    Practice Area: Intellectual Property
    Industry: Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Chad S.C. Stover, Regina S.E. Murphy, Robert C. Mattson, Eric W. Schweibenz, Frank J. West, Vincent K. Shier, Christopher Ricciuti and Katherine D. Cappaert for plaintiff
    for defendant: Philip A. Rovner, Jonathan A. Choa, Alyssa Caridis and Nicholas H. Lam for defendants.

    Case Number: D67947

    The court construed patent terms relating to the manufacture of automotive fuel tanks.

  • Siemens Indus., Inc. v. Westinghouse Air Brake Tech. Corp.

    Publication Date: 2017-11-22
    Practice Area: Intellectual Property
    Industry: Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Karen Jacobs, Mark M. Supko, Kathryn L. Clune, Vincent J. Galluzzo and Jacob Z. Zambrzycki for plaintiff
    for defendant: Steven L. Caponi, Alan L. Barry, Jason A. Engel, Benjamin E. Weed, Devon C. Beane and Katherine L. Hoffee for defendants.

    Case Number: D67948

    The court issued a claim construction order in this patent infringement matter relating to multiple aspects of train safety and control.