Filter This View

  • Mirtech, Inc. v. Agrofresh, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-04-04
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Agriculture | Food and Beverage
    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/counter-defendants.
    for defendant: Chad S.C. Stover, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant/counter-plaintiff.
    Case Number: 20-1170-RGA

    The court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment in a matter involving a breach of contract claim.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Rodriguez v. Capital Vision Serv., LLC

    Publication Date: 2023-02-28
    Practice Area: Labor Law
    Industry: Health Care | Retail
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-1222-RGA

    Discrimination claims failed due to lack of evidence that discriminatory animus motivated adverse employment decisions or lack of adequate comparators, where employer had performance-related reasons for its decision.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Lancaster County & Berks County Court Rules 2023

    Authors:

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Barry v. Stryker Corp.

    Publication Date: 2022-11-29
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Health Care | Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Dominick T. Gattuso, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Clay Holloway, Mitchell G. Stockwell, Courtney S. Dabbiere, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP, Atlanta, GA; Dario A. Machleidt, 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: Brian P. Egan, Cameron P. Clark, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Chad T. Nitta, Jason S. Jackson, Heather N. Tilley, Kutak Rock, LLP, Denver, CO for defendants.
    Case Number: 20-1787-RGA

    The court denied defendants' request for leave to amend their complaint, finding that voluminous discovery was not an adequate basis for delay and defendants did not act with diligence in seeking leave to amend.

  • Allergan USA, Inc. v. Sun Pharm. Indus. Ltd.

    Publication Date: 2022-11-29
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Jeremy A. Tigan, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Lisa B. Pensabene, Hassen A. Sayeed, Daniel O'Boyle, Carolyn S. Wall, James Y. Li, Mark A. Hayden, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Dominick T. Gattuso, Heyman Energio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Charles B. Klein, Jovial Wong, Winston & Strawn LLP, Washington, DC; Kevin J. Boyle, Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL for defendant.
    Case Number: 19-1727-RGA

    The court granted plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings in part and denied in part.

  • In re Entresto Patent Litig.

    Publication Date: 2022-11-29
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Daniel M. Silver, Alexandra M. Joyce, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Nicholas N. Kallas, Christina Schwarz, Christopher E. Loh, Susanne L. Flanders, Jared L. Stringham, Shannon K. Clark, Laura K. Fishwick, Gregory J. Manas, Venable LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Dominick T. Gattuso, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Scott A. Cunning II, Elizabeth M. Crompton, Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein, LLP, Washington, DC; C. Kyle Musgrove, Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein, LLP, Charlotte, NC for defendant.
    Case Number: 20-md-2930-RGA

    Court dismissed infringement claims and counterclaims of non-infringement after defendant converted its Paragraph IV certification to a 21 U.S.C. §355(j)(2)(A)(viii) statement averring the non-infringement of its ANDA product.

  • Groove Digital, Inc. v. King.com Ltd.

    Publication Date: 2022-11-29
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Software | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Karen L. Pascale, Robert M. Vrana, Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brian S. Seal, Thomas G. Southard, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Cameron P. Clark, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael J. Sacksteder Fenwick & West LLP, San Francisco, CA; Geoffrey Miller, Fenwick & West LLP, Mountain View, CA; Michael Flynn, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Stephen R. Smith, Samuel Whitt, Cooler LLP, Washington, DC for defendants.
    Case Number: 18-836-RGA

    Court relied upon extrinsic evidence to understand how person of ordinary skill in the art would construe patent terms in dispute in claim construction.

  • Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-11-08
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: E-Commerce | Entertainment and Leisure | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Philip A. Rovner, Jonathan A. Choa, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; James R. Hannah, Paul J. Andre, Lisa Kobialka, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Menlo Park, CA; Aaron M. Frankel, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Cameron P. Clark, Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Aaron E. Hankel, B. Trent Webb, John Garretson, Jordan T. Bergsten, Maxwell C. McGraw, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kansas City, MO for defendant.
    Case Number: 16-453-RGA

    Doctrine of equivalents claim was collaterally estopped where plaintiff had unsuccessfully attempted in another suit to attempt to read out claim elements to prove that product function in both cases satisfied a claim limitation under the doctrine.