Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
385 results for '* industry:"Technology Media and Telecom"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2023-10-16
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ned Weinberger, Mark Richardson, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jeroen van Kwawegen, Edward G. Timlin, Eric J. Riedel, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Rudolf Koch, Kevin M. Gallagher, Daniel E. Kaprow, John M. O’Toole, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Thomas Uebler, McCollom D’Emilio Smith Uebler LLC, Wilmington, DE; Jason Cyrulnik, Paul Fattaruso, Matthew Henken, Cyrulnik Fattaruso LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: 2017-0486-SG
Although controlling stockholder breached fiduciary duties by using his position to cause company to release an indemnification claim, the minority stockholders were only entitled to nominal damages due to significant obstacles to enforcing the claim which resulted in the release consideration being worth more than the company likely would have recovered attempting to enforce the claim.
Publication Date: 2023-10-09
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: E-Commerce | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Fallon
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 23-365-SRF
Court dismissed patent infringement claim after finding patent was directed to ineligible subject matter where patent merely involved abstract processes capable of being performed by a human or with the assistance of generic technological components.
Publication Date: 2023-10-09
Practice Area: Intellectual Property
Industry: E-Commerce | Legal Services | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Bibas
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Michael J. Flynn, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Dale M. Cendali, Eric A. Loverro, Joshua L. Simmons, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: David E. Moore, Bindu A. Palapura, Andrew L. Brown Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Gabriel M. Ramsey, Warrington Parker, Joachim B. Steinberg, Jacob Canter, Christopher J. Banks, Shira Liu, Margaux Poueymirou, Anna Z. Saber, Crowell & Moring LLP, San Francisco, CA; Mark A. Klapow, Crinesha B. Berry, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, D.C. for defendant.
Case Number: 20-cv-613-SB
Court excluded economic expert's testimony as unsupported by data and methodology where expert claimed there was little likelihood of a market for plaintiffs' product, since there were insufficient facts about the attributes of the product or whether there were current substitutes for the product already on market.
Publication Date: 2023-10-09
Practice Area: Insurance Law
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Freeman
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-3121
District Court properly dismissed insurance coverage dispute for lack of personal jurisdiction where neither party was headquartered in Delaware and the underlying policy did not cover any property or loss in Delaware.
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.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Joseph S. Britton
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2023-09-04
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Manufacturing | Retail | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Davis
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Krista M. Reale, Margolis Edelstein, Wilmington, DE; Herbert W. Mondros, Rigrodsky Law, P.A. Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: K. Tyler O’Connell, Barnaby Grzaslewicz, Samuel E. Bashman, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE; Eric C. Liebeler, Kevin Kitchen, Connor Shaull, Stinson LLP, Minneapolis, MN for defendants.
Case Number: N20C-10-121-EMD
Concluding that the facts alleged for the breach of contract claim in the original complaint were similar to those pled in the claim for tortious interference in the amended complaint, the court denied defendant's motion to dismiss finding that defendant was provided sufficient notice of the tortious interference claim to relate back to the original complaint.
Publication Date: 2023-09-04
Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
Industry: E-Commerce | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Rennie
Attorneys: For plaintiff: David Wilks, D. Charles Vavala III, Wilks Law LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Karen Jacobs, Alexandra Cumings, Stephanie Rudolph, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: N23C-01-229 SKR CCLD
The court granted defendant's motion to stay Delaware proceedings in deference to an earlier-filed pending case in federal district court in California finding that the parties and issues presented were substantially identical, the California court could provide prompt and complete justice, and allowing the California and Delaware actions to proceed simultaneously would risk waste of judicial resources and inconsistent resolution of the issues.
Publication Date: 2023-09-04
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Education | Software | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Will
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Laurence C. Cronin, Kelly A. Green, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE; William J. Leahy, Tanner McCarron, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Philadelphia, PA for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Richard P. Rollo, Travis S. Hunter, Tyler E. Cragg, Griffin A. Schoenbaum, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: 2023-0546-LWW
Former employees did not breach non-compete agreements where the agreements specifically defined competition as in the business lines of the employer's parent company rather than the employer that the employees worked for.
Publication Date: 2023-08-28
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Adams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Counsel: Kevin M. Capuzzi, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff, LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Paul D. Brown, Mark L. Desgrosseilliers, Chipman Brown Cicero & Cole, LLP, Wilmington, DE; F. Maximilian Czernin, Peter R. Morrison, Squire Patton Boggs, LLP, Cincinnati, OH for defendant.
Case Number: N22C-12-143 MAA CCLD
Plaintiff, in its capacity as trustee of plaintiff's company, filed suit against the company's investor for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and tortious interference with prospective contractual relations, as well as other claims that had been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged that, when its company had been in a precarious financial situation which had been known by defendant, defendant had intentionally interfered with a prospective deal the company was negotiating with another investor by actively discouraging the deal within
Publication Date: 2023-08-28
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Consulting | Software | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Johnston
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Anthony N. Delcollo, Thomas H. Kramer, Offit Kurman, P.A., Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Daniel F. McAllister, McAllister Firm LLC, Wilmington, DE for defendant.
Case Number: N19C-08-199 MMJ CCLD
Court dismissed breach of settlement lawsuit where there was no evidence that defendant breached his representations and warranties in the settlement, which was the sole exclusion to the broad release of claims that included future claims or claims based on heretofore unknown facts.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read