Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
228 results for '* topic:"Patent Litigation"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2023-11-20
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Automotive | Manufacturing | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; John M. Hughes, Andrew C. Baak, Taylor J. Kelson, Bartlit Beck LLP, Denver, CO; Rebecca T. Horwitz, Mark L. Levine, Bartlit Beck LLP, Chicago, IL for plaintiff.
for defendant: Daryll Hawthorne-Bernardo, Christian J. Singewald, White & Williams LLP, Wilmington, DE; Frank C. Cimino, Jr., Megan S. Woodworth, Jonathan L. Falkler, Charles J. Monterio, Jr., Venable LLP, Washington, DC for defendant.
Case Number: 18-1647-RGA
Court granted summary judgment of non-infringement after accepting defendant's proposed claim construction and struck plaintiff's supplemental declaration raising a doctrine of equivalents theory as untimely where plaintiff never raised the theory in its complaint or during discovery.
Publication Date: 2023-11-20
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Energy | Mining and Resources
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Burke
Attorneys: For plaintiff: James M. Lennon, Devlin Law Firm, Wilmington, DE; Bradley W. Caldwell, Jason D. Cassady, John Austin Curry, Justin T. Nemunaitis, Daniel R. Pearson, Adrienne R. Dellinger, Caldwell Cassady Curry P.C., Dallas, TX for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Kenneth L. Dorsney, Cortlan S. Hitch, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jeff Dyess, Paul Sykes, Benn Wilson, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Birmingham, AL; Jessica Zurlo, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Washington, D.C.; Jack B. Blumenfeld, Brian P. Egan, Anthony D. Raucci, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Richard W. Mark, Joseph Evall, Paul J. Kremer, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY; David Glandorf, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Denver, CO; Nicole A. DiSalvo, Jessica R. Kunz, Daniel S. Atlas, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE; Douglas R. Nemec, Leslie A. Demers, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: 19-1334-CJB
Court denied summary judgment to defendants for plaintiffs' contributory infringement claim where there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether defendants' product had other substantial non-infringing uses or whether defendants manufactured the product specifically for use in a manner that infringed upon plaintiffs' patents.
Publication Date: 2023-11-20
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Agriculture | Manufacturing
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Rennie
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Rodger D. Smith, Ryan D. Stottman, Rachel R. Tunney, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Deborah E. Fishman, David Denuyl, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Palo Alto, CA; David R. Marsh, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Washington, DC; Aaron Stiefel, Neda Dadpey, Michael Mazzullo, Arnold & Porter Kaye Schholer LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Chad S.C. Stover, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael D. Flibbert, Pier D. DeRoo, Kassandra M. Officer, Rachael D. Dippold, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC for defendants.
Case Number: N22C-07-168 SKR CCLD
Court declined to strike patent invalidity defense raised by licensee where it could continue to accrue royalty obligations under the terms of the license agreement despite the patents having expired and other parties who may have licensed or infringed upon the patent would also benefit from a finding of invalidity.
Publication Date: 2023-11-20
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Accounting | Software | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Slomsky
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-65
Court dismissed patent infringement claim where patent was directed to ineligible subject matter by merely claiming the abstract idea of a billing system that used the internet and generic computer technology, without making any claims that constituted an improvement of computer technology.
Publication Date: 2023-10-09
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: E-Commerce | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Fallon
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 23-365-SRF
Court dismissed patent infringement claim after finding patent was directed to ineligible subject matter where patent merely involved abstract processes capable of being performed by a human or with the assistance of generic technological components.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Joseph S. Britton
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
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: 2023-10-02
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.
Publication Date: 2023-09-25
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Biotechnology
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Slomsky
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-1117
Applying Supreme Court precedent, the court determined that the patents at issue, which focused on compositions and laboratory methods used to uncover genetic information, did not fall within the three exceptions to the broad categories of subject matter eligible for patenting under § 101: laws of nature; physical phenomena; and abstract ideas. Defendant's motion to dismiss denied.
Publication Date: 2023-09-25
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Software
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: John G. Day, Andrew C. Mayo, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Denise M. De Mory, Michael N. Zachary, Jennifer L. Gilbert, Richard C. Lin, Bunsow De Morey, Redwood City, CA for plaintiff.
for defendant: Kelly E. Farnan, Sara M. Metzler, Richards, Layton & Finger P.A., Wilmington, DE; James F. Valentine, Perkins Coie LLP, Palo Alto, CA; Christopher G. Hanewicz, Perkins Coie LLP, Madison, WI; Matthew J. Moffa, Thomas V. Matthew, Perkins Coie LLP, New York, NY for defendant.
Case Number: 20-358-RGA
Court declined to exclude plaintiff's expert's opinions in patent infringement suit, finding that the expert correctly used the stipulated construction of terms in the patent-in-suit in at least two theories of infringement.
Publication Date: 2023-09-25
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Bryson
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-913-WCB MEMORANDUM OPINION
Court declined to dismiss patent infringement case on collateral estoppel grounds where present action was asserting other independent claims that contained elements not expressly recited in claims addressed in the parties' prior action.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read