Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
193 results for '* topic:"Patent Litigation"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2019-09-25
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kelly E. Farnan and Christine D. Haynes, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Dominick A. Conde, Christopher P. Borello and Damien N. Dombrowski, Venable LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld and Jeremy A. Tigan, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP,Wilmington, DE; Martin J. Black, Kevin M. Flannery, Robert Ashbrook, Sharon K. Gagliardi, Blake B. Greene and Katherine A. Helm, Dechert LLP, Philadelphia, PA and New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: D68716
The court denied defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law and alternative motion for a new trial, because the jury's verdict in this patent infringement matter was supported by the evidence.
Publication Date: 2019-09-18
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Advertising | E-Commerce
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Arthur G. Connolly III, Ryan P. Newell and Kyle Evans Gay, Connolly Gallagher LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jeffrey S. Standley, James Lee Kwak and F. Michael Speed, Jr., Standley Law Group LLP, Dublin, OH for plaintiff.
for defendant: John W. Shaw, Karen E. Keller, David M. Fry and Nathan R. Hoeschen, Shaw Keller LLP, Wilmington, DE; Douglas J. Kline, Srikanth K. Reddy, Molly R. Grammel and Naomi L. Birbach, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA and New York, NY; Yuval H. Marcus, Cameron S. Reuber, Matthew L. Kaufman and Lori L. Cooper, Leason Ellis LLP, White Plains, NY for defendants.
Case Number: D68707
An expert witness in this patent litigation matter was entitled to present testimony regarding his reasonable royalty calcula-tions, but another expert's lost profits opinion was not based on sufficient reliable information.
Publication Date: 2019-09-18
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Entertainment and Leisure
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: D68702
Expert damages opinion in patent infringement case excluded where expert relied upon conclusion that no non-infringing example existed and therefore rendered calculation of cost to create such an example illogical, and where expert provided an insufficient basis to apportion value to infringing portion of product.
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.
Publication Date: 2019-09-04
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Software
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kenneth Dorsney, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE, Ian R. Liston, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., Wilmington, DE, James C. Yoon, Ryan R. Smith, Christopher D. Mays, and Mary A. Procaccio-Flowers, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., Palo Alto, CA for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld and Stephen J. Kraftschik, Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Erik B. Milch, Frank Pietrantonio, and Dustin Knight, Cooley LLP, Reston, VA, Rose Whelan, Lisa Fuller Schweir, and Naina Soni, Cooley LLP, Washington, DC for defendant.
Case Number: D68686
Court did not erroneously construe software limitation as a means-plus-function term where the word "means" was absent from the claim and where the claim as a whole failed to connote sufficient structure to a POSA.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors:
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
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.
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.
Publication Date: 2019-07-03
Practice Area: Expert Witnesses | Patent Litigation
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kelly E. Farnan and Katharine L. Mowery, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Lawrence J. Gotts, Saswat Mis-ra, Kevin L. Mallen and Gabriel S. Gross, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC, New York, NY, and Menlo Park, CA; Stephanie N. Solomon, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY; David S. Benyacar and Daniel L. Reisner, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Shanti M. Katona and Christina M. Belitz, Polsinelli PC, Wilmington, DE; Robert Reckers, David Morehan, Christine A. Guas-tello, Jordan T. Bergsten, Colman D. McCarthy and Thomas M. Patton, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Houston, TX and Kansas City, MO for defendants.
Case Number: D68620
The court granted several aspects of the parties' various motions to limit expert testimony where the experts did not tie their opinions to the facts of the case.
Publication Date: 2019-06-19
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Agriculture
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: D68598
Stay of patent infringement case granted where Patent Trial and Appeals Board ruled that claims of a patent-in-suit were unpatentable and parties anticipated appeal of that decision, since resolution of that matter could result in simplification of the issues on trial.
Publication Date: 2019-06-19
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: E-Commerce
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Burke
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Timothy Devlin, Devlin Law Firm LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: David E. Moore, Bindu A. Palapura and Stephanie E. O'Byrne, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE for defend-ants Rhapsody Int'l and Spotify USA Inc. Patrick Bageant, Hollystone Law, Boise, ID for defendant Rhapsody Int'l. Stefani E. Shanberg and Michael J. Guo, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, CA for defendant Spotify USA Inc.
Case Number: D68605
Defendants were not entitled to summary judgment, because genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the patent involved an inventive concept.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read