Filter This View

  • Averon US, Inc. v. AT&T Corp.

    Publication Date: 2024-03-26
    Practice Area: Intellectual Property
    Industry: Software | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Hughes
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Tracy L. Pearson, Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC, Wilmington, DE; Joseph Diamante, Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC, New York, NY; Raymond Jones, Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC, Leesburg, VA; William Flachsbart, Mark Magas, Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC, Chicago, IL for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Frederick L. Cottrell, III, Jason James Rawnsley, Richards, Layton & Finger, PA, Wilmington, DE; David S. Almeling, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, San Francisco, CA; Timothy S. Durst, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Dallas, TX for defendants.
    Case Number: 1:22-cv-01341-TMH

    Court declined to dismiss trade secret claims where the parties' contracts could be reasonably interpreted to impose a duty of confidentiality upon defendant to protect plaintiff's disclosed proprietary technology.

  • Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. Laguna Dairy

    Publication Date: 2023-12-04
    Practice Area: Labor Law
    Industry: Agriculture | Food and Beverage
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Hughes
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: William D. Sullivan, Sullivan Hazeltine Allison LLC, Wilmington, DE; Andrew J. Henrik, Sullivan Hazeltine Allison LLC, Rosemont, IL for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Rudolf Koch, Jason J. Rawnsley, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; James L. Bromley, Andrew J. Finn, Zachary R. Ingber, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
    Case Number: 22-1135-TMH

    Multiemployer pension plan lacked statutory cause of action under the Multi-employer Pension Plan Amendments Act to enforce private settlement over withdrawal liability where settlement did not qualify as revised assessment.

  • Beeney v. FCA US LLC

    Publication Date: 2023-11-06
    Practice Area: Consumer Protection
    Industry: Automotive
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Hughes
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ian Connor Bifferato, The Bifferato Firm, Wilmington, DE; Rosemary M. Rivas, David Stein, Kyla J. Gibboney, Gibbs Law Group LLP, Oakland, CA; William H. Anderson, Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, Boulder, CO; Rebecca P. Chang, Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, New York, NY; Simon Wiener, Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, Boston, MA; Jon M. Herskowitz, Baron & Herskowitz, Miami, FL for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Patrick M. Brannigan, Jessica L. Reno, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephen A. D’Aunoy, Scott H. Morgan, Thompson Coburn LLP, St. Louis, MO for defendant.
    Case Number: 22-00518-TMH

    Vehicle purchasers' claims arising from manufacturers destination charge practices failed where federal law only required vehicle window stickers to list the price charged by a manufacturer to a dealer to ship vehicles from the factory to the dealer lot and there was no evidence that allegedly inflated destination charges caused consumers to pay more for vehicles as ultimate purchase prices were set by dealerships.

  • United States v. CCM TCEP, LLC

    Publication Date: 2022-07-26
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Construction | Energy | Federal Government
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Hughes
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Washington, DC; David C. Weiss, United States Attorney for the District of Delaware, Wilmington, DE; Ruth A. Harvey, Michael J. Quinn, John R. Kresse, Tiffiney Carney, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, Washington, DC for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Michael J. Gottlieb, Martin J. Weinstein, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, Washington, DC; Natalia T. Sorgente, Adam Dec, Baker Botts, L.L.P., Washington, DC; Kenneth J. Nachbar, Alexandra M. Cumings, Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
    Case Number: D69900

    Guarantors lacked standing to sue under prime contract where guarantors were not parties to the agreement and their surety status did not mean they were third-party beneficiaries under the prime contract.