Filter This View

  • Sprint Commc'ns Co. LP v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2020-01-08
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: R. Montgomery Donaldson and Christina B. Vavala, Polsinelli PC, Wilmington, DE; B. Trent Webb, Aaron E. Hankel, Ryan J. Schletzbaum, Ryan D. Dykal, Jordan T. Bergsten, Lauren E. Douville, Mark D. Schafer, Maxwell C. McGraw, Samuel J. LaRoque, Robert H. Reckers and Michael W. Gray, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kansas City, MO and Houston, TX for Sprint Communications.
    for defendant: Kelly E. Farnan, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; David S. Benyacar, Daniel L. Reisner and Robert J. Ka-terberg, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, New York, NY and Washington, DC; Gregory Arovas, Jeanne M. Heffernan, James E. Marina, Luke L. Dauchot and Bao Nguyen, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY, Los Angeles, CA and San Francisco, CA for Charter Communications. Steven J. Balick and Andrew C. Mayo, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Robinson Vu, Lindsay Volpenhein Cutié, Amy E. Bergeron and Timothy S. Durst, Baker Botts LLP, Houston, TX and Dallas, TX for Media-com Communications, WideOpenWest Networks, Atlantic Broadband Fin. and Grande Communications Networks. Phillip A. Rovner, Jonathan A. Choa and Alan R. Silverstein, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brian M. Buroker, Omar F. Amin, Jessica Altman and Robert Vincent, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC and Dallas, TX for Frontier Com-munications.
    Case Number: D68836

    The court construed patent terms relating to technology for making telephone calls over the internet.

  • Melendez v. Harper

    Publication Date: 2020-01-08
    Practice Area: Civil Rights
    Industry: Health Care | State and Local Government
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Anibal Melendez, Smyrna, DE, pro se plaintiff.
    for defendant: Dana Spring Monzo, White & Williams, Wilmington, DE for defendant Mills.
    Case Number: D68835

    An inmate's complaint for civil rights violations failed to state any personal involvement on the part of one defendant, so the court dismissed that claim and allowed plaintiff to amend.

  • In re ChanBond, LLC Patent Litig.

    Publication Date: 2020-01-01
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Electronics | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen B. Brauerman and Sara E. Bussiere, Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Mark S. Raskin, Robert A. Whitman, Michael S. De Vincenzo, John F. Petrsoric, and Andrea Pacelli, Mishcon De Reya New York LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld and Jennifer Ying, Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael Brody and Jonathan Retsky, Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL; David P. Enzminger, Winston & Strawn LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Krishnan Padmanabhan, Winston & Strawn LLP, New York, NY; James Lin, Winston & Strawn LLP, Menlo Park, CA for defendant.
    Case Number: D68823

    Expert opinion regarding written description and enablement excluded where the expert focused on the accused technologies and failed to analyze whether the specifications sufficiently described the patent claims.

  • Gracenote, Inc. v. Free Stream Media Corp.

    Publication Date: 2019-12-25
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: David E. Moore, Bindu A. Palapura and Stephanie E. O’Byrne, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wil-mington, DE; Steven Yovits, Mark Scott, Clifford Katz and Malavika Rao, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Chicago, IL for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Kelly E. Farnan, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Sten Jensen, Clement Seth Roberts and Alyssa Caridis, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Washington, DC, San Francisco, CA and Los Angeles, CA for defendant.
    Case Number: D68817

    Plaintiff's patents contained inventive concepts that were directed to address known issues, so they were not simply abstract ideas.

  • Guidry v. Wilmington Trust, N.A.

    Publication Date: 2019-12-25
    Practice Area: Class Actions
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: David A. Felice, Gregory Y. Porter, Patrick Muench and Ryan T. Jenny, Bailey & Glasser, LLP, Wilming-ton, DE and Washington, D.C.; Daniel Feinberg and Todd Jackson, Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow LLP, Berkeley, CA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Albert H. Manwaring, IV, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael J. Prame, Edward J. Meehan and Ross P. McSweeney, Groom Law Group, Washington, D.C. for defendant.
    Case Number: D68818

    Plaintiff met the ascertainability, numerosity and adequacy of representation requirements for a class action.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Florida Construction Defect Litigation 2022

    Authors: Gary L. Brown

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • M2M Solutions, LLC v. Sierra Wireless America, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2019-12-11
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stamatios Stamoulis and Richard C. Weinblatt, Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs. Wendy Verland and Jeffrey D. Ahdoot, Blackbird Technologies, Boston, MA for plaintiff Blackbird Tech LLC. Thomas C. Grimm and Jeremy A. Tigan, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE
    for defendant: Ronald F. Lopez and Jennifer Hayes, Nixon Peabody LLP, San Francisco, CA and Los Angeles, CA for Sierra Wireless defend-ants. Jack B. Blumenfeld and Rodger D. Smith II, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; David Loewenstein and Clyde A. Shuman, Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer, Wilmington, DE for defendant Telit Wireless Solutions.
    Case Number: D68804

    In this patent claim construction matter, the court concluded that a preamble could be limiting, and a prior statement was not sufficiently specific to qualify as a prosecution history disclaimer.

  • Terry v. Dover Police Dep't

    Publication Date: 2019-12-04
    Practice Area: Civil Rights
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Alfred R. Terry, Georgetown, DE, pro se plaintiff.
    for defendant:
    Case Number: D68795

    Governmental entities named in this civil rights suit were entitled to immunity, and the complaint failed to allege personal in-volvement on the part of the individual defendants. Complaint dismissed, with leave to amend.

  • Kenny v. Univ. of Delaware

    Publication Date: 2019-11-27
    Practice Area: Employment Litigation
    Industry: Education
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Counsel: David H. Williams, James H. McMackin, III and Allyson Britton DiRocco, Morris James, LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: James D. Taylor, Jr. and Christina D. Riggs, Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr, LLP, Wilmington, DE and Philadelphia, PA for defendants.
    Case Number: D68785

    In this employment discrimination case, plaintiffs failed to show that defendants' reasons for terminating their employment were pretextual. Summary judgment granted in favor of defendants.

  • TC Tech. LLC v. Sprint Corp.

    Publication Date: 2019-11-27
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kelly E. Farnan and Katharine L. Mowery, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Lawrence J. Gotts, Kevin L. Mallen and Gabriel S. Gross, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC, New York, NY and Menlo Park CA; Stephanie N. Solomon, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY; David S. Benyacar, Daniel L. Reisner, Maxwell C. Preston and Michael J. Block, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: R. Montgomery Donaldson and Christina B. Vavala, Polsinelli PC, Wilmington, DE; B. Trent Webb, Christine A. Guastello, Jordan T. Bergsten, Colman D. McCarthy, David Morehan and Gary M. Miller, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kansas City, MO, Houston, TX and Chicago, IL for defendants.
    Case Number: D68788

    In the claim construction for this patent case involving wireless services, the court relied on the plain meaning of the term and the context of the claim language.

  • Shabazz v. Delaware Dep't of Corr.

    Publication Date: 2019-11-27
    Practice Area: Civil Rights
    Industry: Health Care | State and Local Government
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Matthew G. Summers, Brittany M. Giusini and William J. Burton, Ballard Spahr LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Adria B. Martinelli and Allison J. McCowan, Delaware Dep’t of Justice, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
    Case Number: D68787

    The court allowed plaintiff to file a third amended complaint beyond the time allowed under the scheduling order, but only to the extent that plaintiff was able to allege specific facts relating to the involvement of an additional defendant.