Filter This View

  • Vifor Fresenius Med. Care Renal Pharma Ltd. v. Lupin Atlantis Holdings SA

    Publication Date: 2019-09-18
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian E. Farnan and Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Raymond N. Nimrod, Steven C. Cherny, Matthew A. Traupman, Lauren N. Martin and Nancy Zhang, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY, Boston, Ma and San Francisco, CA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: John W. Shaw, Karen K. Keller and Nathan R. Hoeschen, Shaw Keller LLP, Wilmington, DE; John C. Phillips, Jr. and David A. Bilson, Phillips, Goldman, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Anuj K. Wadhwa, Rakoczy Molino Mazzochi Siwik, LLP, Chicago, IL; Scott J. Bornstein, Richard C. Pettus, Michael H. Imbacuan, Julie P. Bookbinder and Johnathan R. Wise, Green-berg Traurig, LLP, New York, NY and Philadelphia, PA for defendants.
    Case Number: D68709

    In this claim construction matter, the court determined that the disputed terms were not indefinite, because the specification and prosecution history provided sufficient guidance to a person of ordinary skill in the art.

  • Arendi S.A.R.L. v. LG Elec., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2019-09-04
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Neal C. Belgam, Eve H. Ormerod, and Beth A. Swadley, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins, LLP, Wilmington, DE, Stephen Susman, Seth Ard, and Max Straus, Susman Godfrey, LLP, New York, NY, John Lahad, Susman Godfrey, LLP, Houston, TX for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Jeremy D. Anderson, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Wilmington, DE, Steven R. Katz and Matthew C. Berntsen, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Boston, MA, Denise S. Kraft, Brian A. Biggs, and Erin E. Larson, DLA Piper LLP (US), Wilmington, DE, Mark D. Fowler, Christine K. Corbett, and Summer Torrez, DLA Piper LLP (US), East Palo Alto, CA, Robert C. Williams and Kevin C. Hamilton, DLA Piper LLP (US), San Diego, CA, Richard K. Herrmann, Mary B. Matterer, and Kenneth L. Dorsney, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE, Brian C. Riopelle and David E. Finkelson, McGuireWoods LLP, Richmond, VA, Rachelle Thompson, McGuireWoods LLP, Raleigh, NC, Jack B. Blumenfeld and Jeremy A. Tigan, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE, Heidi L. Keefe and Lowell D. Mead, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA, DeAnna Allen and Phillip E. Morton, Cooley LLP, Washington, DC, David E. Moore, Bindu A. Palapura, and Stephanie E. O’Byrne, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE, Robert W. Unikel, Robert Laurenzi, Michelle Marek Figueiredo, and John Cotiguala, Paul Hastings LLP, Chicago, IL, Rodger D. Smith, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE, Jeffri A. Kaminski and Justin E. Pierce, Venable LLP, Washington, DC, Jack B. Blumenfeld and Anthony David Raucci, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE, Jeffri A. Kaminsi, Venable LLP, Washington, DC for defendants.
    Case Number: D68687

    Where patent claims failed to provide sufficient structure for a term or where a POS would not be on sufficient notice to know which algorithms were claimed by a patent, such claims were indefinite.

  • AOS Holding Co. v. Bradford White Corp.

    Publication Date: 2019-07-03
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Hardware
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: John C. Phillips, Jr. and David A. Bilson, Phillips, Goldman, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A., Wilmington, DE; S. Edward Sarskas, Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, Milwaukee, WI; Kenneth M. Albridge III, Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, Madison, WI for plaintiffs
    for defendant: Andrew J. Koopman and Christopher H. Blaszkowski, RatnerPrestia, Wilmington, DE; Benjamin E. Leace, RatnerPrestia, King of Prussia, PA for defendant.
    Case Number: D68615

    Patent claim was not struck for indefiniteness when a person of ordinary skill in the art would sufficiently understand how to measure the term in the context of the claimed invention.

  • Sun Life Assurance Co. Canada v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

    Publication Date: 2019-05-29
    Practice Area: Consumer Protection | Insurance Law
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Insurance
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Thomas J. Francella, Gregory F. Fischer, Michael J. Miller, Charles J. Vinicombe, Barry Golob, Daniel P. Thiel, Lezlie Madden and Kristin Parker, Cozen O'Connor, Wilmington, DE and Philadelphia, PA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: David J. Baldwin, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; John E. Failla, Nathan Lander and Elise A. Yablonski, Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, NY for defendant.
    Case Number: D68578

    Genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on defendant's counterclaims for deceptive trade practices and promissory estoppel in this insurance matter.

  • Sun Life Assurance Co. Canada v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n

    Publication Date: 2019-03-27
    Practice Area: Insurance Litigation | Trusts and Estates
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Insurance
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Thomas J. Francella, Michael J. Miller, Gregory J. Star, Charles J. Vinicombe and Daniel P. Thiel, Cozen O'Connor, Wilmington, DE and Philadelphia, PA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: David J. Baldwin and Ryan C. Cicoski, Potter Anderdon & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE ; John E. Fail-la, Nathan Lander and Elise A. Yablonski ,Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, NY for defendant.
    Case Number: D68507

    A life insurance policy was void because no insurable interest existed. Summary judgment granted in favor of the insurer.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Library of Pennsylvania Family Law Forms, Fourth Edition

    Authors: Joseph S. Britton

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Wi-Lan Inc. v. Sharp Elec. Corp.

    Publication Date: 2019-03-06
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian E. Farnan and Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Monte M. Bond, Jeffrey R. Bragalone, Patrick J. Conroy, Terry Saad and James R. Perkins, Bragalone Conroy P.C., Dallas, TX for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld and Stephen J. Kraftschik, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Gianni Cutri, Joel Merkin, Michael W. De Vries, Adam R. Alper, James Beard and Jared Bárcenas, Kirk-land & Ellis LLP, Chicago, IL, Los Angeles, CA, San Francisco, CA, New York, NY for defendant Sharp Elec. Corp. Pilar Gabrielle Kraman, Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Rex Hwang, Stanley M. Gibson and Jessica Newman, Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendant Vizio, Inc.
    Case Number: D68455

    The court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants in this patent infringement matter, because plain-tiff was unable to provide admissible evidence of direct infringement.

  • Citrix Sys., Inc. v. AVI Networks, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2019-02-27
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Douglas E. McCann and Robert M. Oaks, Fish & Richardson P.C., Wilmington, DE; Ruffin B. Cordell and Indranil Mukerji, Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, DC; Adam J. Kessel, Fish & Richardson P.C., Boston, MA; Elizabeth Brenckman , Fish & Richardson P.C., New York. NY; John-Paul Fryckman, Fish & Richardson P.C., San Diego, CA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: David E. Moore, Bindu A. Palapura, and Stephanie E. O'Byrne, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Josh Krevitt and Brian A. Rosenthal, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY; Y. Ernest Hsin, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, San Francisco, CA; Brian K. Andrea, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC for defendant.
    Case Number: D68470

    Patent claims were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter where they merely attempted to claim the use of dynamic response times, as opposed to static response times, to improve the determination of availability of network service, without demonstrating how such processes were unique to or improved the functionality of computer networks.

  • Horatio Washington Depot Techs. LLC v. TOLMAR, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2019-01-02
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kelly E. Farnan, Richards, Layton & Finger, Wilmington, DE; A. Neal Seth, Lawrence M. Sung, Theresa Summers, and Alexander B. Oxczarczak, Wiley Rein LLP, Washington, DC for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Adam W. Poff, Young, Conway, Stargatt & Taylor, Wilmington, DE; Jeffrey R. Gargano, Kevin P. Shortsle, and Zachary D. Miller, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Chicago, IL for defendants.
    Case Number: D68416

    The court accepted proposed claim construction based upon the specification's repeated references to the term.

  • Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-11-07
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joseph J. Farnan, Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Amy K. Wigmore, Gregory H. Lantiere, Heather M. Petruzzi, Tracey C. Allen, Jeffrey T. Hanston, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dale LLP, Washington, DC; Kevin S. Prussia, Andrew J. Danford, Timothy A. Cook, Kevin M. Yukerwich, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dale LLP, Boston, MA, attorneys for plaintiffs
    for defendant: Arthur G. Connolly, III, Connolly Gallagher LLP, Wilmington, DE; Neal C. Belgam, Eve H. Ormerod, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE; Stamatios Stamaulis, Richard C. Weinblatt, Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC, Wilmington, DE; Karen L. Pascale, Robert M. Vrana, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, DE; John C. Phillips, Jr., David A. Bilson, Phillips, Goldman, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A., Wilmington, DE; David Ellis Moore, Bindu Palapura, Stephanie E. O'Byrne, Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sean M. Brennecke, Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg LLP, Wilmington, DE; Dominick T. Gattuso, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for defendants.
    Case Number: D68342

    Court rejected more restrictive construction of patent claims where intrinsic evidence indicated that patentee did not intend to apply different definitions when using term in different applications or to restrict measurement techniques to meet patent specification for active particles.

  • Camarillo Holdings LLC v. Amstel River Holdings, LLC

    Publication Date: 2018-11-07
    Practice Area: Damages | Fee Disputes
    Industry: Legal Services
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kathleen M. Miller, Robert K. Beste, III, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for plaintiff
    for defendant: Paul D. Brown, Joseph B. Cicero, Chipman Brown Cicero & Cole, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Mark A. Castillo, Curtis Castillo PC, Dallas, TX, attorneys for defendants.
    Case Number: D68344

    Remand granted where face of plaintiffs' complaint failed to give rise to any federal cause of action and where defendants' potential defenses under federal law were ineligible to create federal question jurisdiction.