Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
48 results for '* judge:"District Judge Williams"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2023-05-02
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Gregory R. Booker, Nitika Gupta Fiorella, Elizabeth M. Flanagan, Sarah E. Jack, Fish & Richardson P.C. for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Carl D. Neff, Gurpreet Singh Walia, M.D., Esq., Gary Ji, Gurpreet S. Walia, FisherBroyles, LLP; Kenneth L. Dorsney, Cortlan S. Hitch, Morris James LLP; Timothy H. Kratz, George J. Barry III, Kratz & Barry LLP; Stamatios Stamoulis, Richard C. Weinblatt, Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC; Shashank Upadhye, Brent Batzer, Yixin Tang, Upadhye Tang LLP; Benjamin J. Schladweiler, Renee Mosley Delcollo, Greenberg Traurig, LLP; Dmitry V. Shelhoff, Ph.D., Edward D. Pergament, Kenneth S. Canfield, Julia S. Kim, Pergament & Cepeda LLP for defendants.
Case Number: 21-843-GBW
Court rejected defendants' assertion of indefiniteness of disputed terms in claim construction, where the intrinsic record and prosecution history of the patents-in-suit provided objective boundaries that would inform a person of ordinary skill in the art about the scope of the patent claims, so the court adopted plaintiffs' proposed constructions after defendants declined to offer competing instructions or present any evidence regarding what they believed a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the disputed terms to me
Publication Date: 2023-03-21
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: E-Commerce | Electronics | Software
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Andrew C. Mayo, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Benjamin T. Horton, John R. Labbe, Raymond R. Ricordati III, Chelsea M. Murray, Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP, Chicago, IL for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Chad. S.C. Stover, Mark C. Nelson, Darrick J. Hooker, Adam M. Kaufmann, Dana Amato Sarros, David M. Lisch, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: 21-534-GBW
Court declined to correct inventorship of patent where plaintiffs could not show that they had conceived of various claims in the patent and had not communicated other claims to defendants before defendants had independently conceived of those claims and reduced them to practice.
Publication Date: 2023-03-07
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Consumer Products | Manufacturing
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kelly Allenspach Del Dotto, Susan E. Morrison, Fish & Richardson P.C., Wilmington, DE; Kurt L. Glitzenstein, Jacob B. Pecht, Fish & Richardson P.C., Boston, MA for plaintiff.
for defendant: Amy M. Dudash, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jason C. White, Scott D. Sherwin, Maria E. Doukas, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Chicago, IL for defendant.
Case Number: 21-400-GBW
Court declined to adopt limited construction of patent terms based on prosecution history where inventor had merely clarified patent to distinguish invention from prior art.
Publication Date: 2023-02-28
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Software | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Andrew C. Mayo, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Benjamin T. Horton, John R. Labbe, Raymond R. Ricordati III, Chelsea M. Murray, Marshall, Gerstein & Borun, LLP, Chicago, IL for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Chad S.C. Stover, Mark C. Nelson, Darrick J. Hooker, Adam M. Kaufmann, Dana Amato Sarros, David M. Lisch, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: 21-534-GBW
Conversion claim was preempted by federal patent law where relief on the claim would be predicated on resolution of the dispute over ownership of the technology disclosed in the patent-in-suit.
Publication Date: 2023-02-21
Practice Area: Class Actions
Industry: Automotive | Manufacturing
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kelly A. Green, Smith, Katzenstein, & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE; Russell D.
Paul, Abigail J. Gertner, Amey J. Park, Natalie Lesser, Berger Montague PC, Philadelphia, PA; Tarek H. Zohdy, Cody R. Padgett, Laura Goolsby, Capstone Law APC, Los Angeles, CA; Steven Calarnusa, Geoff Stahl, Rachel Bentley, Gordon & Partners, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, FL; Geoffrey Graber, Brian E. Johnson, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Washington, DC for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Patrick M. Brannigan, Jessica L. Reno, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephen A. D’Aunoy, Scott H. Morgan, Thompson Coburn LLP, St. Louis, MO for defendants
Case Number: 22-116-GBW
The court granted a motion to dismiss in part in a class action matter filed by vehicle owners against an engine manufacturer and distributor.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Michael R. Griffinger, Paul F. Cullum III
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2023-01-10
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-1427-GBW
Court declined to grant patent infringement defendant judgment on the pleadings based on prosecution history estoppel where the evidentiary record was not developed enough to determine whether plaintiff's amendments to its patents were related to patentability.
Publication Date: 2022-12-27
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry:
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael J. Joyce, Joyce, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Rene S. Roupinian, Jack A. Raisner, Gail C. Lin, Raisner Roupinian LLP, New York, NY for appellants and cross-appellees.
for defendant: Bradford J. Sandler, Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP, Wilmington, DE for cross-appellant and appellee.
Case Number: 20-10553 (CTG)
Court reversed in part Bankruptcy Court's decision holding that debtor employers were not required to provide notice under the Federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act prior to laying off workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Publication Date: 2022-12-06
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Jeremy A. Tigan, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP; F. Dominic Cerrito, Eric C. Stops, Evangeline Shih, Andrew S. Chalson, Gabriel P. Brier, Frank C. Calvosa, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Daniel M. Silver, Alexandra M. Joyce, McCarter & English, LLP; Kenneth G. Schuler, Marc N. Zubick, Alex Grabowski, Sarah W. Wang, Herman Yue, Alan Devlin, Andrew T. Jones, Audra Sawyer, Franco Benyamin, Sarah Propst, Yi Ning, Latham & Watkins LLP; Daralyn J. Durie, Kira A. Davis, Katherine E. McNutt, Rebecca E. Weires, Durie Tangri LLP for defendant.
Case Number: 21-691-GBW
Court accepted plain and ordinary meaning of disputed patent terms where extrinsic evidence showed that the term constituted a term of art showing that the claimed invention had a release profile different from immediate release or other prior art.
Publication Date: 2022-12-06
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: David E. Moore, Bindu A. Palapura, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; John M. Desmarais, Karim Z. Onssayef, Lindsey E. Miller, Edward Geist, Raymond N. Habbaz, William Vietb, Benjamin Rodd, Amy I. Wann, Jonas R. McDavit, Tamir Packin, Desmarais LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Alyssa Caridis, Jack O'Neal, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Clement S. Robert, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, San Francisco, CA; Evan D. Brewer, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Menlo Park, CA; Richard F. Martinelli, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: 22-590-GBW
Patent infringement claim dismissed where computer systems patent claimed an abstract idea that did not provide an inventive concept.
Publication Date: 2022-11-29
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Education | Health Care
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stamatios Stamoulis, Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC, Wilmington, DE; Michael W. Shore, Alfonso G. Chan, Chijioke E. Offor, Shore Chan DePumpo LLP, Dallas, TX; Brian D. Melton, John P. Lahad, Corey M. Lipschutz, Susman Godfrey LLP, Houston, TX for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Chad Drown, Timothy E. Grimsrud, Katherine S., Razavi, Lauren J.F. Barta, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Minneapolis, MN; David J.F. Gross, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, East Palo Alto, CA; Christopher J. Burrell, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP Washington, D.C.; Melissa A. Anyetei, James R. Ferguson, Michael J. Word, Ma yer Brown LLP, Chicago, IL for defendant.
Case Number: 18-392-GBW
The court issued a decision granting official definitions to the term "fiber" in a claim construction request.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read