Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
Publication Date: 2023-10-02
Practice Area: Bankruptcy
Industry: Manufacturing
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Susan E. Kaufman, Law Office of Susan E. Kaufman, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Nathan Kilbert, Assistant General Counsel, United Steel Workers, Pittsburgh, PA; Richard M. Seltzer, Melissa S. Woods, Sommer Omar, Cohen, Weiss and Simon LLP, New York, NY for appellant.
for defendant: B. Nelson Sproat, Blank Rome LLP, Wilmington, DE; Andrew Herman, John Lucian, Blank Rome LLP, Philadelphia, PA for appellee.
Case Number: 22-10252 (JTD)
Relying on the general principle that, notwithstanding a bankruptcy court's authority to extinguish liabilities incurred prior to the sale of the debtor's assets, the court cannot insulate a purchaser from liability for claims arising after the sale due to the purchaser's conduct, the court concluded that appellee's status as a successor to debtor's business was determined by its post-sale conduct in hiring a majority of its workforce from the predecessor and maintaining substantial continuity in business operations.
Publication Date: 2023-10-02
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: John W. Shaw, Karen E. Keller, Nathan R. Hoeschen, Shaw Keller LLP, Wilmington, DE; Robert Frederickson III, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA; Alexandra D. Valenti, Jenevieve N. Nutovits, Goodwin Procter LLP, New York, NY; Alison Siedor, Goodwin Procter LLP, Washington, D.C. for plaintiff.
for defendant: Francis DiGiovanni, Thatcher A. Rahmeier, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael E. Zeliger, Ranjini Acharya, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Palo Alto, CA; Evan Finkel, Michael S. Horikawa, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendants.
Case Number: 22-1545-GBW
Court dismissed patent infringement case due to patents being directed to an ineligible abstract idea of using mathematical processes to optimize event schedules, where the patent did not specify new devices or technologies but instead relied upon generic computers and machine learning algorithms.
Publication Date: 2023-10-02
Practice Area: Corporate Entities
Industry:
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Thomas W. Briggs, Jr., Alexandra Cumings, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael C. Holmes, Jeffrey Crough, Thomas Mitsch, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Dallas, TX; Matthew R. Freidenberg, Vinson & Elkins LLP, New York, NY; Scott B. Czerwonka, D. Charles Vavala, III, Wilks Law, LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Martin S. Lessner, Elisabeth S. Bradley, M. Paige Valeski, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant. John D. Hendershot, Matthew W. Murphy, Angela Lam, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for nominal defendant.
Case Number: 2022-0582-LWW
Noting that a contracting party is obligated to read any contract it signs including any documents incorporated by reference, the court denied defendant relief because it could have discovered the challenged loan terms by exercising ordinary care.
Publication Date: 2023-10-02
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Health Care | Manufacturing
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael J. Farnan, Brian E. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Erik B. Milch, Cooley LLP, Reston, VA; Allison Elkman, Cooley LLP, Washington, D.C.; Dena Chen, Deepa Kannappan, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA for plaintiff.
for defendant: Nathan R. Hoeschen, Karen E. Keller, Shaw Keller LLP, Wilmington, DE; George Lombardi, Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL; Claire A. Fundakowski, Joseph C. Masullo, Winston & Strawn LLP, Washington, D.C.; Kelly C. Hunsaker, Michael Rueckheim, Winston & Strawn LLP, Redwood City, CA; Evan Lewis, Winston & Strawn LLP, Houston, TX for defendants.
Case Number: 19-005 (MN)
After crediting the jury's verdict of patent infringement, the court determined that plaintiff had failed to offer any evidence that would serve as a basis for damages and remitted the jury's award to nominal damages of $1.
Publication Date: 2023-10-02
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Robert C. McDonald, Adrienne M. McDonald, Silverman McDonald & Friedman, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Robert M. Goff, Jr., City of Wilmington Law Department, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: 2019-0969-KSJM
Chancery court could exercise subject matter jurisdiction over former police officer's complaint challenging his termination for failure to comply with later-voided revised residency requirement, where declaratory judgment or certiorari review would be unlikely to afford relief given city's continued assertion, despite the striking down of the revised policy, that officer's termination was proper.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Robert F. Connolly, MST, Susan K. Dromsky-Reed, Jeffrey D. Gordon, Tiffany Wagner Donio, Frances B. Stella, Alysse Mcloughlin, Kathleen Quinn
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2023-09-25
Practice Area: Landlord Tenant Law
Industry:
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Adams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Andrew D. Cordo, Kaitlin E. Maloney, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Katherine L. Mowery, Griffin A. Schoenbaum, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Mark T. Josephs, Brian H. Oates, Matt M. Johnson, Jackson Walker, LLP, Dallas, TX for defendant.
Case Number: N23C-01-178 MAA CCLD
Court denied landlord summary judgment on tenant's breach of lease agreement where the lease obligated the parties to continue with a revise-or-consent procedure to resolve improvement costs over the tenant allowance, and there was evidence that the tenant was continuing with the procedure until the landlord refused to proceed with revisions and terminated the lease.
Publication Date: 2023-09-25
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Biotechnology
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Slomsky
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-1117
Applying Supreme Court precedent, the court determined that the patents at issue, which focused on compositions and laboratory methods used to uncover genetic information, did not fall within the three exceptions to the broad categories of subject matter eligible for patenting under § 101: laws of nature; physical phenomena; and abstract ideas. Defendant's motion to dismiss denied.
Publication Date: 2023-09-25
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Software
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: John G. Day, Andrew C. Mayo, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Denise M. De Mory, Michael N. Zachary, Jennifer L. Gilbert, Richard C. Lin, Bunsow De Morey, Redwood City, CA for plaintiff.
for defendant: Kelly E. Farnan, Sara M. Metzler, Richards, Layton & Finger P.A., Wilmington, DE; James F. Valentine, Perkins Coie LLP, Palo Alto, CA; Christopher G. Hanewicz, Perkins Coie LLP, Madison, WI; Matthew J. Moffa, Thomas V. Matthew, Perkins Coie LLP, New York, NY for defendant.
Case Number: 20-358-RGA
Court declined to exclude plaintiff's expert's opinions in patent infringement suit, finding that the expert correctly used the stipulated construction of terms in the patent-in-suit in at least two theories of infringement.
Publication Date: 2023-09-25
Practice Area: Insurance Litigation
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Insurance
Court: Delaware Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Seitz
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Thomas E. Hanson, Jr., William J. Burton, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Wilmington, DE; Lilit Asadourian, Alice Kyureghian, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Aaron D. Lindstrom, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Grand Rapids, MI, for plaintiff below, appellee and cross-appellant.
for defendant: John L. Reed, DLA Piper LLP (US), Wilmington, DE; David Newmann, Courtney Devon Taylor, Victoria A. Joseph, Brittany Armour, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Robert J. Katzenstein, Smith Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant below, appellant and cross-appellee.
Case Number: 360, 2022
Ruling that appellee's alleged violation of the False Claims Act arose out of false certifications that the loans it endorsed were eligible for government insurance, not the professional services it provided to borrowers through mortgage banking, mortgage underwriting, and loan servicing; the court concluded that the FCA charges and eventual settlement did not fall within the professional services exclusion in appellant's management liability policy.
Publication Date: 2023-09-25
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Bryson
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-913-WCB MEMORANDUM OPINION
Court declined to dismiss patent infringement case on collateral estoppel grounds where present action was asserting other independent claims that contained elements not expressly recited in claims addressed in the parties' prior action.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read