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: 2023-08-21
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Manufacturing
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Bryson
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-984-WCB
In considering a motion to stay proceedings pending completion of an ex parte reexamination of the patent claims by the patent office, the court concluded that, while there was some risk of prejudice to defendant given that the parties were competitors, that risk was outweighed by the potential that the reexamination proceedings would simplify the issues in the case.
Publication Date: 2023-08-21
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Health Care | Manufacturing
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Connolly
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Rodger Dallery Smith II, Anthony David Raucci, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Ashok Ramani, David J. Lisson, Micah G. Block, Ian Hogg, Serge A. Voronov, Davis Polk & Wardell LLP, Menlo Park, CA; Kathryn B. Bi, Alena Farber, Davis Polk & Wardell LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Kelly E. Farnan, Nicole Kathleen Pedi, Richards, Layton & Finger, PA, Wilmington, DE; Catherine Nyarady, Kripa Raman, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY; Nicholas Groombridge, Groombridge, Wu, Baughman & Stone LLP, New York, NY; Jonathan Hangartner, X-Patents, APC, La Jolla, CA for defendant.
Case Number: 19-97-CFC
Court stayed motion for judgment of indefiniteness where plaintiff's expert described claim limitation as functional despite court construing it as structural, potentially giving defendant a viable argument in support of a motion for judgment as a matter of law of noninfringement.
Publication Date: 2023-08-14
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Biotechnology | Software
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Bryson
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-1595-WCB
Court granted defendant's motion to transfer venue in patent infringement case where most of the development of the allegedly infringing product took place in defendant's home venue and, because the product was sold nationwide, any alleged infringement did not occur primarily or substantially in Delaware.
Publication Date: 2023-07-24
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Consumer Products | Electronics
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Connolly
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Counsel: Jimmy C. Chong, Chong Law Firm, PA, Wilmington, DE; Ronald W. Bums, Frisco, Texas for plaintiff.
for defendant: Alan Richard Silverstein, Connolly Gallagher LLP, Wilmington, DE; Mark K. Suri, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Chicago, IL; Jeremy Douglas Anderson, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Ricardo J. Bonilla, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Dallas, TX for defendants.
Case Number: 22-572-CFC
The court's inherent power to manage its docket and orderly and expeditiously dispose of cases extends to requiring nonparty out-of-state witnesses to personally appear before the court.
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: Shari L. Klevens, Alanna G. Clair
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2023-06-27
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Agriculture | Food and Beverage | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Glenn A. Brown, Real World Law, P.C., Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Chad S.C. Stover, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant.
Case Number: 20-1170-RGA
Court denied reargument after granting partial summary judgment on defendant's counterclaim, where plaintiffs had waived some of their arguments by failing to raise them during summary judgment proceedings and defendant's supplemental discovery responses could serve as a basis for reargument where parties had an obligation to correct erroneous or incomplete discovery responses.
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: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Burke
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kelly E. Farnan, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Mark Boland, Raja Saliba, Michael R. Dzwonczyk, Chidambaram S. Iyer, Sughrue Mion, PLLC for plaintiff.
for defendant: Carl D. Neff, FisherBroyles, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Ryan T. Beard, FisherBroyles, LLP, Austin, TX; Christopher R. Kinkade, FisherBroyles, LLP, Princeton, NJ for defendant.
Case Number: 21-1821-CJB
Patent claims described a sufficiently narrower invention than the abstract idea of file synchronization to constitute an arguable improvement in computer technology and an inventive concept.
Publication Date: 2023-06-20
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Manufacturing
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Robert M. Oakes, Fish & Richardson P.C., Wilmington, DE; Ahmed J. Davis, Joshua Rosefelt, Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, DC; Elizabeth Flanagan, Brianna Chamberlin, Fish & Richardson P.C., Minneapolis, MN for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Rodger D. Smith II, Travis J. Murray, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Thomas R. Makin, David Cooperberg, Eric S. Lucas, Shearman & Sterling LLP, New York, NY; Lillian J. Mao, Sherman & Sterling LLP, Menlo Park, CA; Aaron L. Morris, Shearman & Sterling LLP, San Francisco, CA for defendant.
Case Number: 22-979-RGA
Use of the term "comprising" was open language permitting the inclusion of additional components not named in the claim language, with the claim language further implying that the term could include other components.
Publication Date: 2023-06-20
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Electronics | Manufacturing | Software
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Burke
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Philip A. Rovner, Jonathan A. Choa, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Paul J. Andre, Lisa Kobialka, James Hannah, Timothy Layden, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Menlo Park, CA; Aaron M. Frankel, Cristina Martinez, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Karen Jacobs, Cameron P. Clark, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Kristin L. Cleveland, Mark W. Wilson, Salumeh R. Loesch, John D. Vandenberg, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, Portland, OR; Kristina R. Cary, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Boston, MA; Gregg F. LoCascio, P.C., Michael A. Pearson, Jr., Matthew J. McIntee, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, D.C.; Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Clement Naples, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY; Gabriel K. Bell, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, D.C.; Thomas W. Yeh, Latham & Watkins LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Daniel S. Todd, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA for defendants.
Case Number: 22-151-CJB
Patent did not claim ineligible subject matter where it recited an inventive concept that improved upon the prior art by claiming to solve limitations of previous systems through a specific procedure.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read