Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
37 results for '* judge:"District Judge Williams"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2023-10-09
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Federal Government
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joseph B. Cicero, Gregory E. Stuhlman, Thomas A. Youngman, Chipman Brown Cicero & Cole, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Casey B. Howard, Jeffery S. Kramer, Locke Lord LLP., New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Patricia L. Enerio, Gillian L. Andrews, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael R. Tein, Gaye L. Huxoll, Tein Malone PLLC, Coconut Grove, FL for defendants.
Case Number: 22-cv-01255-GBW
Dismissal of breach of contract claim denied where plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to support inference that defendant was the mere continuance or assignee of plaintiffs' contractual counterparty.
Publication Date: 2023-10-02
Practice Area: Bankruptcy
Industry: Manufacturing
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Susan E. Kaufman, Law Office of Susan E. Kaufman, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Nathan Kilbert, Assistant General Counsel, United Steel Workers, Pittsburgh, PA; Richard M. Seltzer, Melissa S. Woods, Sommer Omar, Cohen, Weiss and Simon LLP, New York, NY for appellant.
for defendant: B. Nelson Sproat, Blank Rome LLP, Wilmington, DE; Andrew Herman, John Lucian, Blank Rome LLP, Philadelphia, PA for appellee.
Case Number: 22-10252 (JTD)
Relying on the general principle that, notwithstanding a bankruptcy court's authority to extinguish liabilities incurred prior to the sale of the debtor's assets, the court cannot insulate a purchaser from liability for claims arising after the sale due to the purchaser's conduct, the court concluded that appellee's status as a successor to debtor's business was determined by its post-sale conduct in hiring a majority of its workforce from the predecessor and maintaining substantial continuity in business operations.
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.
Publication Date: 2023-07-24
Practice Area: Commercial Law
Industry: Financial Services and Banking
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ryan M. Ernst, David M. Klauder, Bielli & Klauder, LLC, Wilmington, DE for appellant.
for defendant: Ricardo Palacio, Ashby & Geddes, P.A., Wilmington, DE for appellee.
Case Number: 19-10598 (BLS)
Finding that appellant creditor's claims sounded in tort rather than contract, the court determined that Pennsylvania's Uniform Commercial Code applied and required that for commercial tort claims, in order to be enforceable, a security agreement must provide a specific description of the collateral.
Publication Date: 2023-07-17
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Amy M. Dudash, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE; Amanda S. Williamson, Christopher J. Betti, Krista L. Venegas, Maria E. Doukas, Zachary Miller, Guylaine Hache, Michael T. Sikora, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Chicago, IL; Eric Kraeutler, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for plaintiff.
for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Megan E. Dellinger, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Charles E. Lipsey, J. Derek , Ryan P. O'Quinn, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Reston, VA; William B. Raich, Michael J. Flibbert, Yoonhee Kim, Yoonjin Lee, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Alissa K. Lipton, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Boston, MA for defendant.
Case Number: 21-1015-GBW
Claim that patent terms were indefinite due to being susceptible to multiple meanings for a POSA rejected where the scientific evidence demonstrated that a POSA would only understand the term as having one meaning, and where defendant attempted to incorporate limiting language not supported by the intrinsic record.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Michael R. Griffinger, Paul F. Cullum III
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2023-06-27
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: E-Commerce | Manufacturing | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Jennifer Ying, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Scott D. Sherwin, Jason C. White, James J. Kritsas, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Chicago, IL; Natalie A. Bennett, Calvin M. Brien, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Washington, DC for plaintiff.
for defendant: Kelly E. Farnan, Nicole K. Pedi, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Adam Gershenson, Julianna Landsvik, Cooley LLP, Boston, MA; Heidi Keefe, Lowell Mead, Mark Weinstein, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA; Angeline X. Chen, Cooley LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: 21-1769-GBW
Disputed patent term was not a coined term where the term included part of another term stipulated as having a plain and ordinary meaning and there was nothing in the claim language to indicate that the remaining words of the term had anything other than their dictionary definition.
Publication Date: 2023-06-20
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Financial Services and Banking
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Geoffrey Graham Grivner, Kody Macgyver Sparks, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Stephen B. Brauerman, Ronald P. Golden, III, Bayard P.A., Wilmington, DE; James H. S. Levine, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, Wilmington, DE; David L. Finger, Finger & Slanina LLC, Wilmington, DE; John Legare Williams, Brian C. Crawford, The Williams Law Firm P.A., Wilmington, DE; Akiva M. Cohen, Dylan M. Schmeyer, Kamerman, Uncyk, Soniker & Klein P.C., New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: 21-1456-GBW
Preliminary injunction to enjoin distribution of settlement funds pursuant to the parties' agreement denied where there was no support in the parties' contract for plaintiff's claim of breach and thus plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on the merits.
Publication Date: 2023-06-13
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: E-Commerce
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: David Ellis Moore, Bindu Ann George Palapura, Andrew L. Brown, Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP, Wilmington, DE; John M. Desmarais, Karim Z. Oussayef, Jonas R. McDavit, Jordon N. Malz, Brian D. Matty, Edward Geist, Jun Tong, Eliyahu Balsam, Amy I. Wann, William Vieth, William N. Yau, Benjamin Rodd, Michael Wueste, Lindsey E. Miller, Desmaris LLP, New York, NY; Michael Rhodes, Kyle Curry, Desmaris LLP, San Francisco, CA for plaintiff.
for defendant: Benjamin J. Schladweiler, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Joshua L. Raskin, Allan A. Kassenoff, Julie P. Bookbinder, Jade Li-Yu Chen, Jonathan Presveli, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, New York, NY; Maja Sherman, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Chicago, IL for defendants.
Case Number: 21-461-GBW
Court rejected claims of indefiniteness of patent terms where the specification and prosecution history demonstrated that the terms would be sufficient to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of the invention or the means-plus-function limitation.
Publication Date: 2023-06-06
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Daniel M. Silver, Alexandra M. Joyce, Fish & Richardson P.C.; Jane M. Love, Ph.D., Robert Trenchard, Andrew P. Blythe, Christine L. Ranney, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP for plaintiff.
for defendant: Stamatios Stamoulis, Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC; Mieke K. Malmberg, Paul J. Skiermont, Sarah E. Spires, Steven J. Udick, Kevin P. Potere, Skiermont Derby LLP for defendant.
Case Number: 20-133-GBW
Court declined defendants' more limited proposed claim constructions that included negative limitations which had no basis in the intrinsic record.
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
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read