• Rex Med., L.P. v. Intuitive Surgical, INC.

    Publication Date: 2023-10-02
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Health Care | Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Noreika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael J. Farnan, Brian E. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Erik B. Milch, Cooley LLP, Reston, VA; Allison Elkman, Cooley LLP, Washington, D.C.; Dena Chen, Deepa Kannappan, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Nathan R. Hoeschen, Karen E. Keller, Shaw Keller LLP, Wilmington, DE; George Lombardi, Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL; Claire A. Fundakowski, Joseph C. Masullo, Winston & Strawn LLP, Washington, D.C.; Kelly C. Hunsaker, Michael Rueckheim, Winston & Strawn LLP, Redwood City, CA; Evan Lewis, Winston & Strawn LLP, Houston, TX for defendants.

    Case Number: 19-005 (MN)

    After crediting the jury's verdict of patent infringement, the court determined that plaintiff had failed to offer any evidence that would serve as a basis for damages and remitted the jury's award to nominal damages of $1.

  • First Wheel Mgmt., Ltd. v. Inventist, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-08-07
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Noreika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Sean T. O’Kelly, Gerard M. O’Rourke, O’Kelly & O’Rourke, LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Andrew C. Mayo, Catherine A. Gaul, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Benjamin J. Hodges, Devra R. Cohen, Foster Garvey PC, Seattle, WA for defendants.

    Case Number: 17-1059 (MN)

    Court struck damages claim for restitution based on breach of contractual obligation to deliver IP where plaintiff's exercise of its option to license the IP meant there was a partial breach at most and plaintiff had retained the benefits of defendants' partial performance.

  • Gaspero v. Kijakazi

    Publication Date: 2023-06-20
    Practice Area: Administrative Law
    Industry: Federal Government
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Noreika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen A. Hampton, Grady & Hampton, Dover, DE; David F. Chermol, Chermol & Fishman, LLC, Philadelphia, PA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: David C. Weiss, United States Attorney, Brian C. O’Donnell, Associate General Counsel, Evelyn Rose Marie Protano, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration, Baltimore, MD for defendant.

    Case Number: 22-86 (MN) (JLH)

    Sufficient evidence supported ALJ's determination that plaintiff's combination of medical conditions did not impair him from performing light work that existed in substantial numbers in the national economy, such that plaintiff had residual functional capacity and was not disabled for purposes of SSI.

  • Ecobee, Inc. v. EcoFactor, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-06-13
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Noreika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Thad. J. Bracegirdle, Andrea S. Brooks, Wilks, Lukoff & Bracegirdle LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Jeffrey L. Moyer, Travis S. Hunter, Arun J. Mohan, Richards Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendant.

    Case Number: 21-323 (MN)

    Disputed patent terms were not indefinite because a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand their plain and ordinary meaning and how the terms performed the function of the claimed invention.

  • Isaac v. Cable News Network, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-04-18
    Practice Area: Personal Injury
    Industry: Federal Government | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Noreika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ronald G. Poliquin, The Poliquin Firm, LLC, Dover, DE; Brian E. Della Rocca, Compass Law Partners, Rockville, MD for plaintiff.
    for defendant: David J. Soldo, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE; Alison Schary, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Washington, DC; Hilary Oran, Katherine M. Bolger, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, New York, NY; Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, James G. Touhey, Jr., Director, Torts Branch, Stephen R. Terrell, Attorney, Torts Branch, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC; David J. Margules, Ballard Spahr LLP, Wilmington, DE, Lauren P. Russell, Ballard Spahr LLP, Washington, DC, Kaitlin M. Burney, Ballard Spahr LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Bartholomew J. Dalton, Dalton & Associates, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Abbe David Lowell, Sanaya M. Tamboli, Winston & Strawn LLP, Washington, DC; David A. Kolansku, Winston & Strawn LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: 23-247 (MN)

    Court substituted the federal government for a defendant member of Congress when the underlying events occurred within the scope of the congressman's duties, which required dismissal of the claims for plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Library of Pennsylvania Family Law Forms, Fourth Edition

    Authors: Joseph S. Britton

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • In re Pattern Energy Group. Inc. Sec. Litig.

    Publication Date: 2023-04-11
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Noreika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Sue L. Robinson, Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Andrew J. Entwistle, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, Austin, TX; Vincent R. Cappucci, Arthur V. Nealon, Brendan J. Brodeur, Jonathan H. Beemer, Jessica A. Margulis, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, New York, NY; Marc M. Seltzer, Krysta Kauble Pachman, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Los Angeles, CA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: A. Thompson Bayliss, April M. Ferraro, Christopher Fitzpatrick Cannataro, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Alan S. Goudiss, K. Mallory Brennan, Sherman & Sterling LLP, New York, NY; Christian E. Myrold, Shearman & Sterling LLP, San Francisco, CA; Matthew D. Stachel, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jaren Janghorbani, Geoffrey Chepiga, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: 20-275 (MN) (JLH)

    Court hearing claims under §14(a) properly excluded shareholders who sold their stock after the merger approval vote but before closing, since their alleged pecuniary injury did not directly arise from the challenged merger.

  • SC SJ Holdings, LLC v. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

    Publication Date: 2023-04-04
    Practice Area: Bankruptcy
    Industry: Hospitality and Lodging | Legal Services
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Noreika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Busenkell, Ronald S. Gellert, Bradley P. Lehman, Gellert Scali Buskenell & Brown, LLC; Michael T. Mihm, Jason B. Wesoky, James E. Fogg, Ogborn Mihm LLP for appellants.
    for defendant: John D. Demmy, Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brad D. Brian, Bethany W. Kristovich, Munger, Torres & Olson LLP, Los Angeles, CA for appellee.

    Case Number: 22-689 (MN)

    The court affirmed an order of the Bankruptcy Court which denied debtor's request to limit certain provisions of their Chapter 11 Plan.

  • Dizon v. J.P. Morgan Chase

    Publication Date: 2023-03-28
    Practice Area: Employment Litigation
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Noreika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Dennis Dizon, pro se plaintiff.
    for defendant: Kaan Ekiner, Cozen O’Connor, Wilmington DE for defendant.

    Case Number: D70181

    The court granted defendant's motion to compel arbitration on the basis that the arbitration agreement was clear and unambiguous. Although plaintiff argued that the agreement was unconscionable as it was signed as a precondition to his employment, the court disagreed and pointed out that courts routinely enforce arbitration agreements that are a precondition to employment.

  • Rockwell Automation, Inc. v. EU Automation, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-11-08
    Practice Area: Trademarks
    Industry: Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Noreika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Dominick T. Gattuso, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Paul Tanck, Neal McLaughlin, Alston & Bird LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Edward F. Maluf, Jeremy A. Cohen, Owen R. Wolfe, Jeremy Schachter, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: 21-1162 (MN)

    Motion to transfer venue granted where alleged conduct took place nationally and defendant's preferred forum was much more convenient for both parties, while the current court had a substantially more congested docket.

  • ArcherDX, LLC v. Qiagen Sci., LLC

    Publication Date: 2022-10-18
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Biotechnology
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Noreika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Daniel M. Silver, Alexandra M. Joyce, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Leigh J. Martinson, Keith Toms, Jill Mello, Ph.D., Wyley S. Proctor, McCarter & English, LLP, Boston, MA; Michael A. Albert, Eric J. Rutt, Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C., Boston, MA; Edward R. Reines, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Redwood Shores, CA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: David E. Moore, Bindu A. Palapura, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; David Bilsker, Andrew Naravage, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, San Francisco, CA; Anne Toker, James E. Baker, Anastasia M. Fernands, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, New York, NY; Jeffrey C. Wu, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Salt Lake City, UT for defendants.

    Case Number: 18-1019 (MN)

    Renewed judgment as a matter of law in patent infringement case denied where jury heard sufficient evidence to support a finding that defendants' products satisfied the construed or plain meanings of the claim limitations of the patents-in-suit, and where defendants admitted to knowledge of the patents and the potential for infringement.