Publication Date: 2023-11-27 Practice Area:Mergers and Acquisitions Industry:Manufacturing | Technology Media and Telecom Court:Delaware Superior Court Judge:Judge Wallace Attorneys:For plaintiff: Katharine L. Mowery, Dorronda Bordley, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; David W. Long-Daniels, M. Allyson Lumpkin, Ansley K. Fantaski, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Atlanta, GA for plaintiff. for defendant: Joanna J. Cline, Emily L. Wheatley, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael S. Hino, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, Berwyn, PA for defendant. Case Number: N22C-08-489
Court ordered escrow released where company had failed to state a valid claim for indemnification as it had not identified any extant loss that it had incurred or paid for.
Discrimination and hostile work environment claims failed where plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts supporting an inference that purportedly adverse employment actions were had a discriminatory or retaliatory motivation or that offensive behavior from a supervisor was severe or pervasive.
Publication Date: 2023-11-27 Practice Area:Mergers and Acquisitions Industry:E-Commerce | Investments and Investment Advisory | Software Court:Court of Chancery Judge:Chancellor McCormick Attorneys:For plaintiff: Joel Friedlander, Jeffrey M. Gorris, Christopher M. Foulds, Friedlander & Gorris, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Gregory V. Varallo, Andrew E. Blumberg, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jeroen van Kwawegen, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs. for defendant: Lisa A. Schmidt, Robert L. Burns, Matthew D. Perri, John M. O’Toole, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Matthew Solum, P.C., John Del Monaco, Jeffrey R. Goldfine, Jacob M. Rae, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY for defendants. Case Number: 2019-0442-KSJM
Stockholders in fiduciary class action who also petitioned for appraisal were entitled to elect between continuing with appraisal or taking the class remedy, even though the law required the corporation's approval for withdrawal of the petition for appraisal.
Although plaintiffs failed to identify a contractual provision expressly requiring defendants to operate their aviation-related businesses through the parties' LLC, plaintiffs sufficiently alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by claiming that defendants usurped that business opportunity and caused the LLC to instead engage in marginally profitable interested transactions.
Court declined to dismiss securities and common law fraud claims where acquirer failed to disclose the existence of its obligations under a competing earnout agreement when negotiating acquisition of a company.
Publication Date: 2023-11-20 Practice Area:Patent Litigation Industry:Automotive | Manufacturing | Technology Media and Telecom Court:U.S. District Court of Delaware Judge:District Judge Andrews Attorneys:For plaintiff: Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; John M. Hughes, Andrew C. Baak, Taylor J. Kelson, Bartlit Beck LLP, Denver, CO; Rebecca T. Horwitz, Mark L. Levine, Bartlit Beck LLP, Chicago, IL for plaintiff. for defendant: Daryll Hawthorne-Bernardo, Christian J. Singewald, White & Williams LLP, Wilmington, DE; Frank C. Cimino, Jr., Megan S. Woodworth, Jonathan L. Falkler, Charles J. Monterio, Jr., Venable LLP, Washington, DC for defendant. Case Number: 18-1647-RGA
Court granted summary judgment of non-infringement after accepting defendant's proposed claim construction and struck plaintiff's supplemental declaration raising a doctrine of equivalents theory as untimely where plaintiff never raised the theory in its complaint or during discovery.
Publication Date: 2023-11-20 Practice Area:Patent Litigation Industry:Energy | Mining and Resources Court:U.S. District Court of Delaware Judge:District Judge Burke Attorneys:For plaintiff: James M. Lennon, Devlin Law Firm, Wilmington, DE; Bradley W. Caldwell, Jason D. Cassady, John Austin Curry, Justin T. Nemunaitis, Daniel R. Pearson, Adrienne R. Dellinger, Caldwell Cassady Curry P.C., Dallas, TX for plaintiffs. for defendant: Kenneth L. Dorsney, Cortlan S. Hitch, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jeff Dyess, Paul Sykes, Benn Wilson, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Birmingham, AL; Jessica Zurlo, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Washington, D.C.; Jack B. Blumenfeld, Brian P. Egan, Anthony D. Raucci, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Richard W. Mark, Joseph Evall, Paul J. Kremer, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY; David Glandorf, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Denver, CO; Nicole A. DiSalvo, Jessica R. Kunz, Daniel S. Atlas, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE; Douglas R. Nemec, Leslie A. Demers, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, New York, NY for defendants. Case Number: 19-1334-CJB
Court denied summary judgment to defendants for plaintiffs' contributory infringement claim where there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether defendants' product had other substantial non-infringing uses or whether defendants manufactured the product specifically for use in a manner that infringed upon plaintiffs' patents.
Publication Date: 2023-11-20 Practice Area:Patent Litigation Industry:Agriculture | Manufacturing Court:Delaware Superior Court Judge:Judge Rennie Attorneys:For plaintiff: Rodger D. Smith, Ryan D. Stottman, Rachel R. Tunney, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Deborah E. Fishman, David Denuyl, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Palo Alto, CA; David R. Marsh, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Washington, DC; Aaron Stiefel, Neda Dadpey, Michael Mazzullo, Arnold & Porter Kaye Schholer LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs. for defendant: Chad S.C. Stover, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael D. Flibbert, Pier D. DeRoo, Kassandra M. Officer, Rachael D. Dippold, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC for defendants. Case Number: N22C-07-168 SKR CCLD
Court declined to strike patent invalidity defense raised by licensee where it could continue to accrue royalty obligations under the terms of the license agreement despite the patents having expired and other parties who may have licensed or infringed upon the patent would also benefit from a finding of invalidity.
Although Third Circuit precedent entitled litigant to unseal motion and attach documents pursuant to the public right of access to judicial records, the court certified the case for direct appeal to the Third Circuit to evaluate opposing party's contention that litigant had improper purposes for the motion to unseal.
Court dismissed patent infringement claim where patent was directed to ineligible subject matter by merely claiming the abstract idea of a billing system that used the internet and generic computer technology, without making any claims that constituted an improvement of computer technology.