Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
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: Contracts
Industry: Hospitality and Lodging
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Bibas
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Andrew S. Dupre, Sarah E. Delia, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE; David Spears, Cynthia Chen, Zacharia Chibane, Spears & Imes LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: David E. Ross, S. Michael Sirkin, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jeffrey L. Willian, Devora W. Allon, Gilad Y. Bendheim, Patrick J. Gallagher, Vera C. Esses, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: 1:18-cv-00654-SB-SRF
Court dismissed complaint seeking to pierce corporate veil where plaintiff failed to present evidence that parent and subsidiary failed to observe corporate formalities.
Publication Date: 2023-08-21
Practice Area: Bankruptcy
Industry: Real Estate
Court: Delaware Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Goldblatt
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 23-10687 (CTG)
The bankruptcy court found sufficient cause to lift the stay to allow an unlawful detainer action against debtor pending in California to go forward, concluding that resolution of the dispute was best left to the California courts.
Publication Date: 2023-08-21
Practice Area: Products Liability
Industry: Manufacturing | Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Judge: Judge Davis
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Thomas G. Macauley, Macauley LLC, Wilmington, DE; Martin Bienstock, Bienstock PLLC, Washington, D.C. for plaintiff.
for defendant: James J. Freebery, Daniel J. Brown, Makenzie Windfelder, Hayley J. Reese, Chelsea A. Botsch, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Arthur E. Brown, William Hoffman, Matthew Douglas, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, New York, NY; Amy K. Fisher, Katherine D. Althoff, Carolyn E. Riggs, Ice Miller LLP, Indianapolis, IN; Philip A. Rovner, Jonathan A. Choa, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sherry Knutson, Tucker Ellis LLP, Chicago, IL; Craig A. Thompson, Venable LLP, Baltimore, MD for defendants.
Case Number: N17C-07-001 PPI
Plaintiff brought the underlying personal injury action against defendants alleging that defendants were responsible for developing, manufacturing, marketing, and distributing proton pump inhibitor products that were unsafe, defectively designed, lacked proper warnings, and were unfit to be marketed and sold in the United States. Defendants individually and collectively moved to dismiss the claims. Plaintiff brought the case as administrator of a health care plan directly and as subrogee of its members' claims for a variety of injurie
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.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: David R. Marriott
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2023-08-21
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry:
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Hardiman
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Caitlin D. Kekacs, Andrew D. Roth, Bredhoff & Kaiser, Washington, DC; Michael J. Healey, Healey & Hornack, Pittsburgh, PA for appellant.
for defendant: Samuel J. Pasquarelli, Sherrard German & Kelly, Pittsburgh, PA for appellee.
Case Number: 22-2142
Union local members who disaffiliated from parent union had standing as third-party beneficiaries of parent union's constitution/contract with the local to seek equitable distribution of the local's assets to a new independent local.
Publication Date: 2023-08-14
Practice Area: Creditors' and Debtors' Rights
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Real Estate
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Brennan
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Janet Charlton, Michael Pak, McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Robert J. Valihura, Morton, Valihura & Zerbato, LLC, Greenville DE for defendant.
Case Number: N20L-10-029 DJB
Although mortgagor should have been noticed in second foreclosure action filed against purchaser at first sheriff's sale, the mortgagor's failure to participate in prior foreclosure action and purchaser being placed on constructive notice of potential mortgage liens on the property meant no interested party was prejudiced by the defect.
Publication Date: 2023-08-14
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Beth Moskow-Schnoll, Brian S.S. Auerbach, Brittany M. Giusini, Ballard Spahr LLP, Wilmington, DE; Alejandro H. Cruz, Nathaniel Lancaster, William F. Cavanaugh, Patterson Belkamp Webb & Tyler LLP, New York, NY; Mark A. Neubauer, Steven B. Weisburd, Carlton Fields, LLP, Los Angeles, CA for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Arthur G. Connolly, III, Alan Richard Silverstein, Connolly Gallagher LLP, Wilmington, DE; David G. Hille, Katrina Fetsch, Kimberly A. Haviln, White & Case, LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: 22-589-RGA-SRF
The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss a third-party claim ruling that, for a third-party to recover for a breach of contract, it must appear that the parties to the contract intended to recognize the third-party as the primary party in interest and as privy to the contract.
Publication Date: 2023-08-14
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Chemicals and Materials
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Ambro
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Maureen Farrell, Adam T. Muery, Muery & Farrell, Austin, TX for appellants
for defendant: David J. Baldwin, Berger Harris, Wilmington, DE; Irving M. Geslewitz, Edward D. Shapiro, Much Law, Chicago, IL for appellees.
Case Number: 22-2181
District court erred in ordering arbitration where dispute resolution clause imposing narrow scope of review of solely factual issues during a short window of time indicated that the dispute resolution provision constituted an expert determination rather than an arbitration.
Publication Date: 2023-08-14
Practice Area: Environmental Law
Industry: Energy | Federal Government
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Smith
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Andrew C. Simpson, Andrew C. Simpson Law Offices, Christiansted, VI for petitioner.
for defendant: Todd S. Kim, Heather E. Gange, United States Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division, Washington, DC for respondent.
Case Number: 23-1094
EPA's "reactivation" policy deeming a shut-down facility as "new" upon resumption of operations improperly extended scope of Prevention of Significant Deterioration program under the Clean Air Act, which expressly applied only to new and modified facilities.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read