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: 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.
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.
Publication Date: 2022-11-22
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Andrew C. Mayo, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Benjamin T. Horton, John R. Labbe, Raymond R. Ricordati III, Chelsea M. Murray, Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP, Chicago, IL for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Chad S.C. Stover, Mark C. Nelson, Darrick J. Hooker, Adam M. Kaufmann, Dana Amato Sarros, David M. Lisch, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: 21-534-GBW
The court issued a ruling defining the claim terms of a patent consistent with the arguments made by defendant LLC.
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.
Publication Date: 2022-11-08
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Software | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Patricia S. Rogowski, Rogowski Law, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Robert M. Evans, Michael J. Hartley. Michael H. Durbin, Lewis Rice, LLP, St. Louis, MO for plaintiff.
for defendant: Brian A. Briggs, Angela C. Whitesell, DLA Piper, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Larissa S. Bifano, DLA Piper, LLP, Boston, MA; Richard Mulloy, DLA Piper, LLP, San Diego, CA; Zachary Loney, DLA Piper, LLP, Austin, TX for defendant.
Case Number: 18-cv-01259-RGA
Motion for leave to amend was denied as futile where proposed claim of invalidity due to nonjoinder of inventors failed to allege specific facts to describe how the unnamed inventors participated in conceiving of the inventor or how they collaborated with the named inventor.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: George Bochetto, David P. Heim, John A. O’Connell, Robert S. Tintner
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2022-11-08
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Connolly
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Daniel M. Silver, Alexandra M. Joyce, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Daniel G. Brown, Rebecca Lynne Neubauer, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC; Kenneth G. Schuler, Marc N. Zubick, Alex Grabowski, Latham & Watkins LLP, Chicago, IL; Jennifer Koh, David F. Kowalski, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Diego, CA; Herman Yue, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Neal C. Belgam, Eve H. Ormerod, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE; Constance S. Huttner, Paul S. St. Marie, Jr., Roy H. Wepner, Beth C. Finkelstein, Jason A. Lief, Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf LLP, Madison, NJ; Kenneth L. Dorsey, Cortlan S. Hitch, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE; Deepro R. Mukerjee, Lance A. Soderstrom, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, New York, NY; Jitendra Malik, Joseph M. Janusz, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Charlotte, NC; Christopher B. Ferenc, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Washington, DC; Rachel L. Schweers, Rachel J. Schaub, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Chicago, IL for defendants.
Case Number: 21-1256-CFC-JLH
New drug application did not infringe on patent describing "ready to use" pharmaceutical product where proposed products were not prepackaged and required substantial effort to prepare the drug for administration.
Publication Date: 2022-10-25
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-cv-131-GBW
The court denied a motion for default judgment on the basis that plaintiffs did not adequately plead patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(a). The court noted that plaintiff's complaint was at best described as "sparse" and did not establish that defendant made, used, or sold the accused instrumentalities in the United States
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.
Publication Date: 2022-10-04
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Connolly
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Steven J. Balick, Andrew C. Mayo, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; James B. Monroe, Jennifer H. Roscetti, Charles T. Collins-Chase, Lauren J. Dowty, Meredith H. Boerschlein, Ryan V. McDonnell, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC; Jack B. Blumenfeld, Karen A. Jacobs, Jennifer Ying, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Benjamin J. Schladweiler, Samuel L. Moultrie, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Aaron F. Barkoff, Alejandro Menchaca, Rajendra A. Chiplunkar, Ben J. Mahon, Ashley M. Ratycz, McAndrews, Held & Malloy, LTD., Chicago, IL for defendant.
Case Number: 18-304-CFC-CJB
Court found for defendants in part in a case claiming patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271e(2)(A) for a new patent application for medication to treat partial-onset epileptic seizures.
Publication Date: 2022-08-23
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Gregory R. Booker, Robert M. Oakes, Douglas E. McCann, Fish & Richardson P.C., Wilmington, DE; Corrin N. Drakulich, Christina D. Brown-Marshall, Dexter S. Whitley, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Atlanta, GA; Karrie Wheatley, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Houston, TX; Elizabeth M. Flanagan, Deanna Reichel, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Minneapolis, MN; Jonathan E. Singer, Fish & Richardson, P.C., San Diego, CA; Satish Chintapalli, Chintapalli Law Firm, PLLC, Cary, NC for plaintiff.
for defendant: Timothy Devlin, Peter A. Mazur, Neil A. Benchell, Stephanie Berger, Robert Kiddie, Devlin Law Firm LLC, Wilmington, DE for defendant.
Case Number: D69932
After defendant admitted that its product met the limitations of the patents in suit, the court found it liable for infringement after defendant presented insufficient evidence to prove that the patents in suit were invalid as anticipated or obvious under the prior art.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read