• Newron Pharm. S.p.A. v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd.

    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

  • Takadu LTD., v. Innovyze, LLC

    Publication Date: 2023-04-04
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Software | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen B. Brauerman, Ronald P. Golden III, Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Robert P. Feinland, Jason J. Poulos, Meister Seelig & Fein LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Anne S. Gaza, Samantha G. Wilson, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael A. Jacobs, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, CA; Kyle Mooney, Kyle D. Friedland, Morrison & Foerster LLP, New York, NY for defendant.

    Case Number: 21-291-RGA

    The court ordered the parties to submit a proposed order consistent with the court's ruling on several disputed claim construction terms at issue in a patent litigation matter.

  • MHL Custom, Inc. v. Waydoo USA, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-03-28
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Blake A. Bennett, Cooch and Taylor, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Dennis D. Murrell, Robert J. Theuerkauf, Brian P. McGraw, Megan E. Gibson, Middleton Reutlinger, Louisville, KY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Kelly E. Farnan, Dorronda R. Bordley, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Edgar H. Haug, Robert E. Colletti, Mark Basanta, and Roman Khasidov, Haug Partners LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: D70178

    Court denied parties' cross-motions for summary judgment where there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether defendants' products had dynamic or static stability as required by the specification of the patents in suit.

  • Barry v. Stryker Corp.

    Publication Date: 2023-03-28
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Biotechnology | Health Care
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Regina S.E. Murphy, Barnes & Thornburg, LLP, Wilmington, DE; D . Clay Holloway, Mitchell Stockwell, Courtney S. Dabbiere, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP, Atlanta, GA; Dario A. Machleidt, Christopher P. Damitio, Kathleen R.Geyer, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP, Seattle, WA; Taylor J. Pfingst, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Andrew W. Rinehart, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP, Winston-Salem, NC for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Jeremy Tigan, Brian P. Egan, Cameron P. Clark, Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jonathan G. Graves, Joseph E. Van Tassel, Cooley LLP, Reston, VA; Adam M. Pivovar, Cooley, LLP, Washington, DC; Alissa M. Wood, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA; Chad T. Nitta, Jason S. Jackson, Heather N Tilley, Kutak Rock, LLP, Denver, CO for defendants.

    Case Number: D70177

    The court conducted a detailed analysis of claim construction terms in a patent litigation matter concerning spinal surgeries and deformities.

  • Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Shibuya Hoppman Corp.

    Publication Date: 2023-03-28
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Food and Beverage | Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Connolly
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Timothy Devlin, Peter A. Mazur, Devlin Law Firm LLC, Wilmington, DE; W. Cook Alciati, Chad E. Ziegler, Gardella Grace, P.A., Washington, DC; Olivia E. Marbutt, Kent & Risley LLC, Alpharetta, GA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: John W. Shaw, Karen E. Keller, Nathan R. Hoeschen, Shaw Keller LLP, Wilmington, DE; J.C. Rozendaal, Byron L. Pickard, Michael E. Joffre, Anna G. Phillips, William H. Milliken, Robert E. Niemeier, Deirdre M. Wells, Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC, Washington, DC; Jean Paul Y. Nagashima, Frost Brown Todd LLC, Washington, DC for defendants.

    Case Number: D70174

    Court granted judgment as a matter of law as to noninfringement of patents where a plain reading of the patent limitations meant that the accused products were not substantially similar to the described invention and therefore could not infringe under the doctrine of equivalents.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Florida Evidence and Procedure 2019

    Authors: Patrick S. Montoya, Ervin A. Gonzalez, Ervin A. Gonzalez, Ervin A. Gonzalez, Ervin A. Gonzalez

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • BearBox LLC v. Lancium LLC

    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.

  • Exeltis USA Inc. v. Lupin Ltd.

    Publication Date: 2023-03-21
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Martina T. Hufnal, Douglas E. McCann, Gregory R. Booker, Fish & Richardson P.C., Wilmington, DE; Brian Coggio, Fish & Richardson P.C., New York, NY; Megan A. Chacon, Bernard Cryan, Fish & Richardson P.C., San Diego, CA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: John C. Phillips, Jr., David A. Bilson, Phillips Mclaughlin & Hall, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Michael Nutter, McGuireWoods LLP, Chicago, IL; Merritt Westcott, McGuireWoods LLP, Houston, TX; Corinne S. Hockman, McGuireWoods LLP, Raleigh, NC for defendants.

    Case Number: 22-434-RGA

    Patentees created their own definition for the term "about," but defined it in such a way as to make the term indefinite since it effectively created an unbounded value range for the claim.

  • InQuisient Inc. v. ServiceNow, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-03-07
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: E-Commerce | Software
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Burke
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Susan E. Morrison, Fish & Richardson P.C., Wilmington, DE; Frank E. Scherkenbach, Adam Kessel, Andrew Pearson, Fish & Richardson P.C., Boston, MA; Jason W. Wolff, Fish & Richardson P.C., San Diego, CA; Excylyn Hardin-Smith, Fish & Richardson P.C., New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Jennifer Ying, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Kevin P.B. Johnson, Diane M. Doolittle, Ray Zado, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Redwood Shores, CA; Marissa R. Ducca, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Jodie Cheng, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, San Francisco, CA for defendant.

    Case Number: 22-900-CJB

    Court declined to dismiss patent infringement case at pleadings stage due to lack of patent-eligible subject matter where patent claims appeared to describe new method of electronic data management solving existing problems of flexibility and portability between databases, which constituted an inventive concept beyond the abstract idea of managing data.

  • Persawvere v. Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp.

    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.

  • BearBox LLC v. Lancium LLC

    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.