• Fetch Interactive Television LLC v. Touchstream Tech. Inc.

    Publication Date: 2019-01-16
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes | Intellectual Property
    Industry: Electronics | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Adam W. Poff, Tammy L. Mercer, and Paul J. Loughman, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Steven Morgans, Myers Billion LLP, Sioux Falls, SD for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Herbert W. Mondros, Margolis Edelstein, Wilmington, DE for defendants.

    Case Number: D68422

    Intellectual property licensor properly terminated agreement where licensee breached provision to take no action against or with third-party infringer by offering to sublicense IP, and then failed to comply with licensor's instructions to cure the breach.

  • The Recorder

    Far From 'Slam Dunk,' Google Shareholder Suits Latest in Wave of #MeToo Derivative Actions

    January 14, 2019

    Alphabet has been hit with a pair of shareholder derivative suits claiming that board members hurt shareholder value by covering up a lengthy pattern of gender discrimination and sexual harassment perpetrated by Google executives.

  • Delaware Law Weekly

    Third Circuit Revives T-Mobile Lawsuit Over Blocked Cell Tower

    January 11, 2019

    A three-judge panel of the appeals court Thursday reversed a Delaware district court ruling, which held that T-Mobile Northeast's complaint was unripe because it was filed before the Wilmington Zoning Board of Adjustment issued a written decision blocking the company's request to build a cell tower on top of the Claymore Senior Center.

  • In re Xura, Inc. Stockholder Litig.

    Publication Date: 2019-01-02
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: A. Thompson Bayliss and David A. Seal, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Robert S. Saunders, Arthur R. Bookout, Matthew P. Majarian, and Haley S. Stern, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington DE; John L. Reed, Ethan H. Townsend, Peter H. Kyle, and Harrison S. Carpenter, DLA Piper LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.

    Case Number: D68407

    Objecting shareholder could maintain parallel appraisal and breach of fiduciary duty claims where breach claims were based on failure to disclose material facts and shareholder sought traditional remedies for breach of fiduciary duty, such as rescission or disgorgement, rather than a quasi-appraisal remedy.

  • Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon Inc.

    Publication Date: 2019-01-02
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: E-Commerce | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Noreika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: David E. Moore, Bindu A. Palapura and Stephanie E. O'Byrne of Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jonathan K. Waldrop, Darcy L. Jones, Marcus A. Barber, John W. Downing, Heather S. Kim and Jack Shaw of Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP , Redwood Shores, CA; Hershy Stern and Rodney R. Miller of Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Steven J. Balick and Andrew C. Mayo of Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Thomas L. Duston and Tron Y. Fun of Marshall, Gerstein and Borun, LLP, Chicago, IL for defendants.

    Case Number: D68409

    Plaintiff's patent claims involved abstract ideas, but the court denied defendant's motion to dismiss because unresolved factual issues existed regarding the nature of the claims.

  • Yellow Pages Photos, Inc. v. Dex Media, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-12-19
    Practice Area: Bankruptcy | Copyrights
    Industry: Advertising | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Noreika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: D68396

    The bankruptcy court properly dismissed counterclaims based on claim preclusion, judicial estoppel and col-lateral estoppel, and its fee award was objectively reasonable.

  • Zayo Group, LLC v. Latisys Holdings, LLC

    Publication Date: 2018-12-19
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes | Deals and Transactions
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Elizabeth S. Fenton and Scott W. Perkins, Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Philip Trainer, Jr. and Marie M. Degnan, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Mark D. Cahill, Phoebe Fischer-Groban and Christina G.T. Lau, Choate Hall & Steward LLP, Boston, MA for defendant.

    Case Number: D68397

    Plaintiff did not establish that defendant breached the parties' sale agreement by failing to disclose non-renewals by some of its major customers, because the agreement did not require such notice.

  • In re Tangoe, Inc. Stockholders Litig.

    Publication Date: 2018-12-05
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance | Securities Litigation
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kurt M. Heyman and Melissa N. Donimirski, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jason M. Leviton and Joel A. Fleming, Block & Leviton LLP, Boston, MA; Jeremy S. Friedman, Spencer Oster, and David F.E. Tejtel, Friedman Oster & Tejtel PLLC, New York, NY for plaintiff
    for defendant: Catherine G. Dearlove and Sarah A. Galetta, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; William H. Paine, Timothy J. Perla, Peter A. Spaeth, and Alexandra C. Bourdreau, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA for defendants.

    Case Number: D68375

    Stockholder's derivative complaint not dismissed where he adequately pled company failed to inform stockholders prior to their approval and asserted a reasonable claim for breach of duty of loyalty.

  • Olympus Corp. v. Maxell, Ltd.

    Publication Date: 2018-11-28
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Consumer Products | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Noreika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: John W. Shaw, Karen E. Keller, and Nathan R. Hoeschen, Shaw Keller LLP, Wilmington, DE; William J. McCabe, Matthew J. Moffa, and Thomas V. Matthew, Perkins Coie LLP, New York, NY; Kyle R. Canavera, Perkins Coie LLP, San Diego, CA for plaintiffs
    for defendant: Timothy Devlin and James Gorman, Devlin Law Firm LLC, Wilmington, DE; Jamie B. Beaber, Kfir B. Levy, James A. Fussell, III, Tiffany A. Miller, Baldine B. Paul, and Alison T. Gelsleichter, Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, DC; Robert G. Pluta, Mayer Brown LLP, Chicago, IL for defendant.

    Case Number: D68369

    Patent-in-suit was not directed to patent-ineligible subject matter where it addressed technological improvements to enable camera with recording/play-back capabilities that consumed less power, rather than being directed to the general abstract idea of battery or resource conservation.

  • VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp.

    Publication Date: 2018-11-21
    Practice Area: Intellectual Property | Patent Litigation
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Connolly
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian E. Farnan and Michael J. Farman of Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Morgan Chu, Ben Hattenbach, Amy E. Proctor, Dominik Slusarczyk and Charlotte J. Wen of Irell & Manella LLP, Boston, MA, attorneys for plaintiff
    for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld and Jeremy A. Tigan of Morris, Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE Wil-liam F. Lee and Louis W. Tompros of Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Dorr LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Mark D. Selwyn and Amanda L Major of Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, at-torneys for defendant.

    Case Number: D68365

    Plaintiff's forum choice was entitled to paramount consideration, and little overlap existed between this case and another pending patent matter between the same parties in another jurisdiction.