Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
104 results for '* industry:"Federal Government"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2023-10-30
Practice Area: Litigation
Industry: Federal Government | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ronald G. Poliquin, The Poliquin Firm LLC, Dover, DE; Brian R. Della Rocca, Compass Law Partners, Rockville, MD for plaintiff.
for defendant: David J. Soldo, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE; Alison Schary, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Washington, DC; Hilary Oran, Katherine M. Bolger, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, New York, NY; Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, James G. Touhey, Jr., Director, Torts Branch, Stephen R. Terrell, Attorney, Torts Branch, United States Department Of Justice, Washington, DC; David J. Margules, Ballard Spahr LLP, Wilmington, DE, Lauren Russell, Ballard Spahr LLP, Washington, DC, Kaitlin M. Gurney, Ballard Spahr LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Bartholomew J. Dalton, Dalton & Associates, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Abbe David Lowell, Sanaya M. Tamboli, Winston & Strawn LLP, Washington, DC; David A. Kolansky, Winston & Strawn LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: 23-247 (MN)
Applying the four factors enumerated in Pioneer, the court determined that plaintiff's counsel's late filing of an opposition to a motion to dismiss due to his mis-reliance on the rules was not "excusable neglect" and denied his motion to reconsider the court's decision granting the motion to dismiss.
Publication Date: 2023-10-16
Practice Area: Intellectual Property
Industry: E-Commerce | Investments and Investment Advisory | Software
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Connolly
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Comrie Barr Flinn, Alberto E. Chavez, Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, DE; Mark L. D. Wawro, Max L. Tribble, Susman Godfrey, LLP, Houston, TX; Tamar Lusztig, Susman Godfrey, LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Alexandra M. Cumings, Ryan D. Stottmann, William M. Lafferty, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael B. Carlinsky, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY; Kevin P.B. Johnson, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Redwood Shores, CA; Patrick D. Curran, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Boston, MA for defendants.
Case Number: 23-157-CFC
Defendants could remove case under federal officer removal statute by alleging that it had acquired the right to use plaintiff's intellectual property via federal government contracts after the government allegedly obtained "unlimited right" to the intellectual property.
Publication Date: 2023-10-09
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Federal Government
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joseph B. Cicero, Gregory E. Stuhlman, Thomas A. Youngman, Chipman Brown Cicero & Cole, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Casey B. Howard, Jeffery S. Kramer, Locke Lord LLP., New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Patricia L. Enerio, Gillian L. Andrews, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael R. Tein, Gaye L. Huxoll, Tein Malone PLLC, Coconut Grove, FL for defendants.
Case Number: 22-cv-01255-GBW
Dismissal of breach of contract claim denied where plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to support inference that defendant was the mere continuance or assignee of plaintiffs' contractual counterparty.
Publication Date: 2023-10-09
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry: Construction | Federal Government | State and Local Government
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge McKee
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Lisa A. Mathewson, Philadelphia, PA for appellants.
for defendant: Paul G. Shapiro, Office of United States Attorney, Philadelphia, PA; David E. Troyer, Office of United States Attorney, Philadelphia, PA for appellee.
Case Number: 19-3679
District court erred in setting the loss calculation at defendants' total profits where defendants lawfully performed work on the public construction project, with the DOT/PennDOT merely expecting defendants to obtain certain construction materials from a qualifying supplier.
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.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors:
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2023-08-14
Practice Area: Environmental Law
Industry: Energy | Federal Government
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Smith
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Andrew C. Simpson, Andrew C. Simpson Law Offices, Christiansted, VI for petitioner.
for defendant: Todd S. Kim, Heather E. Gange, United States Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division, Washington, DC for respondent.
Case Number: 23-1094
EPA's "reactivation" policy deeming a shut-down facility as "new" upon resumption of operations improperly extended scope of Prevention of Significant Deterioration program under the Clean Air Act, which expressly applied only to new and modified facilities.
Publication Date: 2023-08-14
Practice Area: Tax
Industry: Federal Government | Manufacturing | Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Jordan
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Clint Carpenter, Arthur T. Catterall, United States Department of Justice Tax Division, Washington, DC; Emily J. Giometti, Cincinnati, OH; Lisa M. Rodriguez, Office of District Council, Internal Revenue Service, Newark, NJ; Mary H. Weber, Internal Revenue Service Office of Chief Counsel, Cincinnati, OH for appellant.
for defendant: Gregory G. Garre, Eric Konopka, Latham & Watkins, Washington, DC; Bryan M. Killian, William F. Nelson, James G. Steele, III, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, Washington, DC for appellee.
Case Number: 22-1193
Legal expenses incurred by generic drug manufacturers to defend against patent infringement lawsuits were tax-deductible where they were ordinary and necessary business expenses as patent litigation was separate from the FDA approval process for ANDAs.
Publication Date: 2023-08-07
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Federal Government | Food and Beverage | Manufacturing
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Porter
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jonathan S. Kanter, Doha Mekki, Maggie Goodlander, David B. Lawrence, Daniel E. Haar, Nikolai G. Levin, Peter M. Bozzo, Brian Hanna, Jonathan Y. Mincer, U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, Washington, DC for plaintiff-appellant.
for defendant: Melissa Arbus Sherry, Amanda P. Reeves, Lindsey S. Champlin, David L. Johnson, Charles S. Dameron, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC; Lawrence E. Buterman, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY; Christopher S. Yates, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA; Jack B. Blumenfeld, Brian P. Egan, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Timothy G. Cameron, Peter T. Barbur, David R. Marriott, Daniel K. Zach, Michael K. Zaken, Lindsey J. Timlin, Hannah L. Dwyer, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY; Amanda L. Wait, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Washington, DC; Kelly E. Farnan, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Peter J. Schwingler, Stinson LLP, Minneapolis, MN; Daniel K. Hogan, Hogan McDaniel, Wilmington, DE for defendant-appellees.
Case Number: 22-2806
Rather than employ the hypothetical monopolist test analysis for determining product market under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's analysis using the actual market for refined sugar as the product market definition.
Publication Date: 2023-07-10
Practice Area: Civil Rights
Industry: Federal Government
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Krause
Attorneys: For plaintiff: David Rudovsky, Jonathan H. Feinberg, Susan M. Lin Kairys, Rudovsky, Messing, Feinberg & Lin LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Patrick Toomey, Ashley Gorski, Sarah Taitz, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, NY; Jonathan Hafetz, Seton Hall Law School, Newark, NJ for appellants.
for defendant: Leif Overvold, Brian M. Boynton, H. Thomas Byron III, Sharon Swingle, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC for appellees.
Case Number: 21-2798
"Clearly established" threshold inapplicable to discretionary function exception analysis under FTCA because the government lacked discretion to violate constitutional rights.
Publication Date: 2023-07-03
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: Delaware Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Valihura
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Patrick J. Collins, Collins & Price, Wilmington, DE for appellant.
for defendant: Brian Arban, Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE for appellee.
Case Number: 218, 2022
Errors in microscopic hair comparison forensic testimony did not compel postconviction relief where the errors did not exculpate defendant and the state presented other substantial evidence of defendant's guilt.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read