Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
375 results for '* industry:"Technology Media and Telecom"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2023-12-11
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom | Transportation
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen E. Jenkins, Richard D. Heins, Ashby & Geddes, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Renee M. Zaytsev, Constance M. Boland, Ned Babbitt, Thompson Hine LLP, New York, NY; Thomas Palmer, Thompson Hine LLP, Columbus, OH; Ryan Blackney, Thompson Hine LLP, Chicago, IL for plaintiff.
for defendant: Michael A. Pittenger, Christopher N. Kelly, Tyler J. Leavengood, David A. Seal, Callan R. Jackson, Christopher D. Renaud, Ryan M. Ellingson, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: 2023-1013-LWW
Court denied stockholder's motion for a preliminary injunction to require company to allow stockholder's nominees to stand for election to the board and to grant the stockholder's request for exemption from a rights plan, where stockholder failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate its likelihood of prevailing on its breach of fiduciary duty claims against the board.
Publication Date: 2023-12-11
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Legal Services | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Connolly
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-1247-CFC
Court referred plaintiffs' counsel for disciplinary investigations after finding that they acted at the direction of patent monetization firms rather than the named plaintiffs in the present patent infringement cases.
Publication Date: 2023-12-04
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Entertainment and Leisure | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 15-611-GBW
Court granted leave to supplement damages expert report where, although supplementation would cause defendants to incur additional discovery expenses, there would be no delay of trial and the report was critical to plaintiff's ability to prove damages at trial.
Publication Date: 2023-11-27
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Manufacturing | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Wallace
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Katharine L. Mowery, Dorronda Bordley, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; David W. Long-Daniels, M. Allyson Lumpkin, Ansley K. Fantaski, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Atlanta, GA for plaintiff.
for defendant: Joanna J. Cline, Emily L. Wheatley, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael S. Hino, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, Berwyn, PA for defendant.
Case Number: N22C-08-489
Court ordered escrow released where company had failed to state a valid claim for indemnification as it had not identified any extant loss that it had incurred or paid for.
Publication Date: 2023-11-27
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Burke
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Philip A. Rovner, Jonathan A. Choa, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Bart H. Williams, Proskauer Rose LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Nolan M. Goldberg, Baldassare Vinti, Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, NY; Edward Wang, Proskauer Rose LLP, Washington, DC for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Adrian C. Percer, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Redwood Shores, CA; Anish R. Desai, Tom Yu, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, NY; Priyata Y. Patel, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Washington, DC for defendant.
Case Number: 22-1538-CJB
Court denied motion to dismiss patent infringement case on grounds of invalidity where patent potentially contained an inventive concept by claiming an ordered combination of conventional elements.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors:
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2023-11-20
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Automotive | Manufacturing | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; John M. Hughes, Andrew C. Baak, Taylor J. Kelson, Bartlit Beck LLP, Denver, CO; Rebecca T. Horwitz, Mark L. Levine, Bartlit Beck LLP, Chicago, IL for plaintiff.
for defendant: Daryll Hawthorne-Bernardo, Christian J. Singewald, White & Williams LLP, Wilmington, DE; Frank C. Cimino, Jr., Megan S. Woodworth, Jonathan L. Falkler, Charles J. Monterio, Jr., Venable LLP, Washington, DC for defendant.
Case Number: 18-1647-RGA
Court granted summary judgment of non-infringement after accepting defendant's proposed claim construction and struck plaintiff's supplemental declaration raising a doctrine of equivalents theory as untimely where plaintiff never raised the theory in its complaint or during discovery.
Publication Date: 2023-11-20
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Accounting | Software | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Slomsky
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-65
Court dismissed patent infringement claim where patent was directed to ineligible subject matter by merely claiming the abstract idea of a billing system that used the internet and generic computer technology, without making any claims that constituted an improvement of computer technology.
Publication Date: 2023-11-13
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael Hanrahan, Samuel L. Closic, John G. Day, Robert B. Lackey, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Max Huffman, Joseph A. Pettigrew, Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, San Diego, CA; Justin O. Reliford, Jing-Li Yu, Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Edward B. Micheletti, Lauren N. Rosenello, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: 2022-0666-KSJM
Stockholder lacked standing to enforce merger agreement, and the agreement did not confer stockholders with third-party beneficiary status to pursue lost-premium damages while the target company pursued specific performance of the merger.
Publication Date: 2023-11-13
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Manufacturing | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Slomsky
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-00169
Court dismissed claim of misleading proxy statements where allegedly false statements about company's commitment to workforce diversity were non-actionable, aspirational puffery that was immaterial to the investing public.
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.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read