• Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. v. Power Integrations, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-03-28
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Hardware
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: John G. Day and Andrew C. Mayo, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Blair M. Jacobs, Christina A. Ondrick, and Patrick J. Stafford, Paul Hastings LLP, Washington, DC, attorneys for plaintiffs
    for defendant: Joseph B. Warden, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Frank E. Scherkenbach, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Boston, MA; Howard G. Pollack and Michael R. Headly, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Redwood City, CA, attorneys for defendant.

    Case Number: D68087

    Final judgment denied where jury instruction overruled on appeal of related case between the parties, such that the potential for the jury to reach a different result with correct instructions meant that the instructions were plain error and necessitated a new trial.

  • In re United Tax Group, LLC

    Publication Date: 2018-03-21
    Practice Area: Bankruptcy | Creditors' and Debtors' Rights
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: D68084

    The bankruptcy court properly denied a motion to allow the filing of a proceeding against the bankruptcy trustee for asserting control over the debtors mail, because no forcible seizure was involved. Order of the bankruptcy court affirmed.

  • Idenix Pharm. LLC v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-02-28
    Practice Area: Damages | Patent Litigation
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Steven J. Balick, John G. Day, Andrew C. Mayo, Calvin P. Griffith, Ryan B. McCrum, Michael S. Wein-stein, Bradley W. Harrison, Anthony M. Insogna, John D. Kinton, John M. Michalik, Lisa L. Furby, Stephanie E. Parker and Jennifer L. Swize for plaintiffs
    for defendant: Martina Tyreus Hufnal, Douglas E. McCann, Elizabeth M. Flanagan, Joseph B. Warden, Santosh V. Coutinho, Frank E. Scherkenbach, Jenny Shmuel, W. Chad Shear, Jonathan E. Singer, Tasha M. Fran-cis and Corrin N. Drakulich for defendant.

    Case Number: D68058

    A patent sufficiently met the written description requirements of 35 U.S.C. §112, but another patent was invalid for lack of enablement.

  • U.S. v. Yung

    Publication Date: 2018-02-14
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: David C. Weiss, Shawn Weede and Elizabeth L. Van Pelt for plaintiff
    for defendant: Edson A. Bostic and Eleni Kousoulis for defendant.

    Case Number: D68045

    Criminal defendant failed to demonstrate that cyberstalking statute was unconstitutionally overbroad.

  • EMSI Acquisition, Inc. v. RSUI Indem. Co.

    Publication Date: 2018-02-14
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance | Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Insurance
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Philip Trainer, Jr., Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Lauren Neal Bennett, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Stephen C. Hackney and Timothy W. Knapp, Kirkland & Ellis, Chicago, IL, attorneys for plaintiff
    for defendant: Michael F. Duggan and Emily Kara Silverstein, Marks O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.; Wilmington, DE; Kevin A. Lahm, Walker Wilcox Matousek LLP, Chicago, IL, attorneys for defendant.

    Case Number: D68039

    Major shareholder exclusion under D&O liability policy did not exclude coverage, where exclusion language subject to multiple interpretations and therefore ambiguous, and was accordingly construed against insurer.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Texas Legal Malpractice & Lawyer Discipline 2023

    Authors: Charles F. Herring, JR, Jason M. Panzer, Leah Turner

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Micron Tech., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-02-07
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Education | Electronics
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Douglas D. Herrmann, M. Duncan Grant, James H.S. Levine, William D. Belanger, Gregory D. Len, Maia H. Harris, Griffin N. Mesmer and Ryan C. Deck for plaintiff
    for defendant: Travis S. Hunter, Frederick L. Cottrel, III, Jared Bobrow and J. Jason Lang for defendant.

    Case Number: D68036

    The court engaged in claim construction relating to terms involved in patents for microelectronics.

  • Noven Pharm., Inc v. Actavis Lab. UT, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-01-17
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jack B. Blumenfeld and Stephen J. Kraftschik, Morris, Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Liane M. Peterson and Ryan A. Schmid, Foley & Lardner LLP, Washington, DE; Steven J. Rizzi, Ramy E. Hanna, and Jayita Guhaniyogi, Foley & Lardner LLP, New York NY; Rebecca J. Pirozzolo-Mellowes, Foley & Lardner LLP, Milwaukee, WI, attorneys for plaintiff and third-party defendant
    for defendant: Steven J. Fineman and Katharine L. Mowery, Richards, Layton & Finger P.A., Wilmington, DE; James K. Stronski, Jacob Z. Zambrizycki, Anne E.H. Li, and Preetha Chakrabarti, Crowell & Moring LLP, New York, NY; Chiemi D. Suzuki, Crowell & Moring LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Craig P. Lytle, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, DC, attorneys for defendant.

    Case Number: D68008

    Plaintiff was barred by prosecution history estoppel from asserting infringement under doctrine of equivalents where limitation amended to claim was added specifically in response to reject to distinguish claim from prior art.

  • In re Greenfield Energy Services, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-01-10
    Practice Area: Bankruptcy | Creditors' and Debtors' Rights
    Industry: Energy
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: D68001

    Where the outcome of a proposed third party proceeding did not have a close nexus to the bankruptcy proceeding and did not affect the confirmed plan, the bankruptcy court did not have subject matter jurisdiction, and the moving party was not entitled to appeal.

  • State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Lambert

    Publication Date: 2017-12-06
    Practice Area: Insurance Law | Landlord Tenant Law
    Industry: Insurance | Real Estate
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joseph J. Bellew and Michael D. O'Donnell for plaintiff
    for defendant: Eileen M. Ford for defendant.

    Case Number: D67962

    Where a residential lease did not contain a provision expressly stating that the tenant would be responsible for damage re-sulting from negligently-caused fires on the premises, the insurer was not entitled to recover against the tenant in a subrogation action.

  • Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Sun Pharm. Indus. Ltd.

    Publication Date: 2017-12-06
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Maryellen Noreika, and Megan Elizabeth Dellinger, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Gerald J. Flattman, Jr., Evan D. Diamond, Vanessa Y. Yen, and Lucas L. Kressel, Paul Hastings LLP, New York, NY, attorneys for plaintiffs
    for defendant: Kelly E. Farnan and Nicole K. Pedi, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Huiya Wu and Brian J. Robinson, Goodwin Proctor LLP, New York, NY; Nicholas K. Mitrokostas, Goodwin Proctor LLP, Boston, MA, attorneys for defendants.

    Case Number: D67960

    Court rejected defendants attempt to add negative limitations to terms in claim construction, in absence of evidence of patentees clear and unmistakable intent to disclaim the claim scope comprised by the proposed negative limitations.