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: 2018-03-21
Practice Area: Damages | Patent Litigation
Industry: Manufacturing
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Sleet
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: D68082
Plaintiffs in this patent infringement matter were entitled to pre-judgement interest where the jury found defendant will-fully infringed, but the court denied the parties other post-trial motions.
Publication Date: 2018-03-07
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Michael J. Flynn, John M. Jackson, Matthew C. Acosta, Blake T. Dietrich, Chris-topher J. Rourk, Robert P. Latham, David Folsom and Wasif Qureshi for plaintiffs
for defendant: Philip A. Rovner, Jonathan A. Choa, George I. Lee, Sean M. Sullivan, Rory P. Shea, J. Dan Smith, Mi-chael P. Boyea, Cole B. Richter and Jae Y. Park for defendant.
Case Number: D68065
In this patent litigation matter, the court engaged in claim construction in connection with issues arising in defendants motions for summary judgment.
Publication Date: 2018-02-28
Practice Area: Damages | Patent Litigation
Industry: Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Stark
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Steven J. Balick, John G. Day, Andrew C. Mayo, Calvin P. Griffith, Ryan B. McCrum, Michael S. Wein-stein, Bradley W. Harrison, Anthony M. Insogna, John D. Kinton, John M. Michalik, Lisa L. Furby, Stephanie E. Parker and Jennifer L. Swize for plaintiffs
for defendant: Martina Tyreus Hufnal, Douglas E. McCann, Elizabeth M. Flanagan, Joseph B. Warden, Santosh V. Coutinho, Frank E. Scherkenbach, Jenny Shmuel, W. Chad Shear, Jonathan E. Singer, Tasha M. Fran-cis and Corrin N. Drakulich for defendant.
Case Number: D68058
A patent sufficiently met the written description requirements of 35 U.S.C. §112, but another patent was invalid for lack of enablement.
Publication Date: 2018-02-28
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Biotechnology
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Bindu A. Palapura, Chad E. Nydegger and Brent P. Lorimer for plaintiff
for defendant: Arthur G. Connolly, III, Thomas S. Reynolds, Jeremy Adelson and Joseph J. Jacobi for defendant.
Case Number: D68060
In this patent matter, the court granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment of no invalidity.
Publication Date: 2018-02-21
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
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 and Rajendra A. Chiplunkar for plaintiff
for defendant: Colm F. Connolly, Jody Barillare, Brett M. Schuman, Rachel M. Walsh and David L. Simson for defend-ant 2Wire, Inc.; Kenneth L. Dorsney, Paul M. Sykes, Melissa Hotze and Elizabeth J. Rader for defend-ants Adtran Inc. and Zyxel Communications Inc.
Case Number: D68053
In this claim construction matter, the court construed various terms relating to asynchronous transfer mode communications systems.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Daniel A. Cohen, Joshua Feinstein
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2018-02-14
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Consumer Products | Health Care
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Colm F. Connolly, David W. Marston, Jr., Jody C. Barillare, and John V. Goodman, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wimington, DE; Thomas B. Kenworthy and Julie S. Goldemberg, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Raymond R. Moser, Jr., Moser Taboada, Shrewsbury, NJ, attorneys for plaintiff
for defendant: Adam W. Poff and Pilar G. Kraman, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilimington, DE; Douglas J. Nash, John D. Cook, Kathryn D. Cornish, Barclay Damon, LLP, Syracuse, NY, attorneys for defendant.
Case Number: D68038
Willful infringement and enhanced damages claim denied where defendants willful blindness to its products possible infringement of plaintiffs patents was at most a substitute for knowledge and did not constitute sufficient egregious behavior to support enhanced damages.
Publication Date: 2018-02-07
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Education | Electronics
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Stark
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Douglas D. Herrmann, M. Duncan Grant, James H.S. Levine, William D. Belanger, Gregory D. Len, Maia H. Harris, Griffin N. Mesmer and Ryan C. Deck for plaintiff
for defendant: Travis S. Hunter, Frederick L. Cottrel, III, Jared Bobrow and J. Jason Lang for defendant.
Case Number: D68036
The court engaged in claim construction relating to terms involved in patents for microelectronics.
Publication Date: 2018-01-31
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Sleet
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: D68024
Motion for judgment on the pleadings in patent infringement case denied where there was a factual dispute over prosecution history and over scope of equivalents to determine whether prosecution history estoppel barred infringement by doctrine of equivalents.
Publication Date: 2018-01-31
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Philip A. Rovner, Jonathan A. Choa, and Alan Silverstein, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Paul J. Andre, Lisa Kobialka, James R. Hannah, and Hannah Lee, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP, Menlo Park, CA; Aaron M. Frankel, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP, New York, NY, attorneys for plaintiff
for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld and Stephen J. Kraftschik, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael A. Tomasulo, Gino Cheng, David K. Lin, and Joe S. Netikosol, Winston & Strawn LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Michael M. Murray, Winston & Strawn LLP, New York, NY; David P. Enzminger, Winston & Strawn, Menlo Park, CA; Dan K. Webb and Kathleen B. Barry, Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL; Thomas M. Dunham and Andrew R. Soomer, Winston & Strawn LLP, Washington, DC; Krista M. Enns, Winston & Strawn LLP, San Francisco, CA, attorneys for defendants.
Case Number: D68022
Patent term computer network included both multiple physical computers and multiple processes executing on a single computer, where intrinsic evidence demonstrated dependent claims which described computer network as involving processes on a single computer.
Publication Date: 2018-01-24
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Douglas E. McCann, Martina Tyreus Hufnal, John S. Goetz, Brian D. Coggio, Ahmed J. Davis, Min Woo Park, Sarah M. Cork, Matt Colvin, D. Michael Underhill, Jon R. Knight, William D. Marsillo, Alex Potter, Bill Ward and Martin Ellison for plaintiffs
for defendant: Arthur G. Connolly III, Ryan P. Newell, Mary Akhimien, Raymond N. Nimrod, Brian P. Biddinger, Gregory D. Bonifield, John P. Galanek, Amanda K. Antons and Matthew Traupman for defendant.
Case Number: D68021
The court engaged in claim construction in this patent litigation matter involving ten patents relating to phar-maceuticals for treating diabetes and pen-type injectors used to administer the drug.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read