Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
272 results for '* topic:"Patent Litigation"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2018-07-04
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Stark
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stamatios Stamoulis, Richard C. Weinblatt, Sheekhar Vyas, James T. Bailey and Gregory Pollaro for plaintiff
for defendant: Karen Jacobs, Megan E. Delliger, Alan M. Fisch, R. William Sigler, Jeffrey Saltman and Joseph Edell for defendants.
Case Number: D68203
Plaintiff's claims were not patent eligible because they were directed to an abstract idea and nothing in the claims represented an inventive concept.
Publication Date: 2018-06-20
Practice Area: Expert Witnesses | Patent Litigation
Industry: Biotechnology
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Stark
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Karen L. Pascale, James L. Higgins, Robert F. Altherr, Jr., Christopher B. Roth, Jason S. Shull and John P. Iwanicki for plaintiffs
for defendant: Thomas C. Grimm, Jeremy A. Tigan, Stephen J. Kraftschik, Jonathan G. Graves, Adam M. Pivovar, James P. Hughes, Stephen C. Crenshaw, Lisa F. Schwier, Nicholas G. Lockhart and Naina Soni for de-fendant.
Case Number: D68187
The parties were not entitled to exclude expert testimony because the opinions were reasonably reliable, and summary judgment was proper as to the issue of whether a two-player market existed.
Publication Date: 2018-05-23
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Electronics
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Peter J. McAndrews, Paul W. McAndrews, David Prange for TQ Delta, LLC
for defendant: Kenneth L. Dorsney, Scott Burnett Smith, Ross Barton and Garland T. Stephens for Adtran Inc. and Zyxel Communications Inc.
Case Number: D68156
This claim construction matter involved communication system patents relating to impulse noise management during initialization, packet retransmission and memory sharing.
Publication Date: 2018-05-23
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Chemicals and Materials
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Stark
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Adam W. Poff, Pilar G. Kraman, Laura Masurovsky, Sydney R. Kestle and Daniel C. Cooley for plaintiff
for defendant: Denise S. Kraft, Brian A. Biggs, Nicholas G. Papastavros, Michael Strapp, Melissa Reinckens, Peter Maggiore and Aaron Fountain for defendants.
Case Number: D68157
The court's claim construction in this case related to technologies for manufacturing and installing flooring products.
Publication Date: 2018-05-23
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Electronics
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Mary Matterer, Stephen R. Carden, Ann C. Palma and James V. Suggs for plaintiff
for defendant: Thomas C. Grimm, Jeremy A. Tigan and Jennifer Hayes for defendants.
Case Number: D68154
The court engaged in claim construction of multiple terms associated with fabricating silicon-based fibers and particles for use in rechargeable lithium ion batteries.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Rosemary Alito
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2018-05-02
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Chemicals and Materials
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Hillman
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Eric James Evain, Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., Wilmington, DE; R. Eric Hutz, Rudolph E. Hutz, and Ryan P. Cox, Reed Smith LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for plaintiff
for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld and Thomas C. Grimm, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for defendant.
Case Number: D68118
Jury verdict in favor of defendant on issue of willfulness proper where record contained sufficient evidence for jury to conclude defendant did not discover adverse nature of plaintiffs patent during the period of its infringement.
Publication Date: 2018-04-25
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Chemicals and Materials
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Hillman
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Eric James Evain, Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., Wilmington, DE; R. Eric Hutz, Rudolph E. Hutz, and Ryan P. Cox, Reed Smith LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for plaintiff
for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld and Thomas C. Grimm, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for defendant.
Case Number: D68118
Jury verdict in favor of defendant on issue of willfulness proper where record contained sufficient evidence for jury to conclude defendant did not discover adverse nature of plaintiffs patent during the period of its infringement.
Publication Date: 2018-04-11
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jack Blumenfeld, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Gary H. Levin, Stephanie M. Papastephanou, Timothy J. Doyle, and Samuel A. McMahon, Baker Hostetler LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Irene H. Hudson, Baker Hostetler LLP, New York, NY, attorneys for plaintiffs
for defendant: John W. Shaw, Karen E. Keller, and David M. Fry, Shaw Keller LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for defendant.
Case Number: D68102
Infringement claim under doctrine of equivalents not precluded where patent claim was comprising and did not exclude compositions not explicitly claimed in the specification.
Publication Date: 2018-03-28
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Hardware
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Stark
Attorneys: For plaintiff: John G. Day and Andrew C. Mayo, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Blair M. Jacobs, Christina A. Ondrick, and Patrick J. Stafford, Paul Hastings LLP, Washington, DC, attorneys for plaintiffs
for defendant: Joseph B. Warden, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Frank E. Scherkenbach, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Boston, MA; Howard G. Pollack and Michael R. Headly, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Redwood City, CA, attorneys for defendant.
Case Number: D68087
Final judgment denied where jury instruction overruled on appeal of related case between the parties, such that the potential for the jury to reach a different result with correct instructions meant that the instructions were plain error and necessitated a new trial.
Publication Date: 2018-03-28
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Sleet
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: D68086
Claimed composition not invalid as obvious where prior art would not have directed person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed composition, and where the exponential of potential compositions meant that a POSA would not have been naturally directed to the claimed composition.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read