Filter This View

  • Takeda Pharm., U.S.A. v. West-Ward Pharm Corp.

    Publication Date: 2019-01-09
    Practice Area: Damages | Patent Litigation
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Mary W. Bourke and Daniel M. Attaway, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jeffrey I. Weinberger, Ted G. Dane, Heather E. Takahashi, Elizabeth L. Laughton, Hannah L. Dubina, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Los Angeles, CA Celia R. Choy and Peter A. Detre, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Washington, DC for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Dominick T. Gattuso, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Lauren C. Tortorella, Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL, Charles B. Klein and Ilan Wurman, Winston & Strawn LLP, Washington, DC; Elaine H. Blais, Robert D. Carroll, Lana S. Shiferman, Robyn R. Schwartz and Louis L. Lobel, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA for defendants.
    Case Number: D68421

    Defendants were entitled to damages for lost profits under a bond where the court improperly granted a preliminary re-straining order.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Rosebud LMS, Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-12-05
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: E-Commerce | Software
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Connolly
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Richard C. Weinblatt of Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC, Wilmington, DE and Cecil E. Key of Dimurogins-berg, P.C., Alexandria, VA for plaintiff
    for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld and Stephen J. Kraftschik of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant.
    Case Number: D68381

    Defendant failed to establish sufficient factors that weighed strongly in favor of transfer of this patent action to a federal court in California, so the court denied its motion.

  • 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.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Florida Construction Defect Litigation 2022

    Authors: Gary L. Brown

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • TMI Solutions LLC v. Bath & Body Works Direct, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-10-10
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: E-Commerce | Retail
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Timothy Devlin, Timothy E. Grochocinski and Joseph P. Oldaker for plaintiff
    for defendant: Frederick L. Cottrell, III, Katharine L. Mowery, Douglas F. Stewart and David J. Ball for defendant Nordstrom, Inc.; Denise S. Kraft, Brian A. Briggs, Nicholas G. Papastavros and Yasmin Ghassab for defendant Staples, Inc.; Beth Moskow-Schnoll, Evan W. Krick, Lynn E. Rzonca, Richard W. Miller and Chittam U. Thakore for remaining defendants.
    Case Number: D68316

    Plaintiff's complaint alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate an inventive concept, and the complaint stated a claim for direct infringement in accordance with the procedural rules.

  • Search and Social Media Partners, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-10-10
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation | Social Media
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen B. Brauerman, Sara E. Bussiere, Seth H. Ostrow, Jeffrey P. Weingart and Antonio Papageor-giou for plaintiff
    for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Karen Jacobs, Heidi L. Keefe, Mark R. Weinstein, Benjamin G. Damstedt and Emily Terrell for defendants.
    Case Number: D68315

    The court granted a motion to dismiss as to a patent that was directed solely to an abstract idea.

  • Wasica Fin. GMBH v. Schrader Int'l, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-10-03
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Automotive | Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jeremy Douglas Anderson, Michael J. Kane and Jason M. Zucchi, Fish & Richardson for plaintiffs
    for defendant: Mary B. Graham, Jeremy A. Tigan, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnel, Brian P. Collins and Robert M. Fuhrer, Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw Pittman for defendants.
    Case Number: D680309

    Plaintiffs were entitled to all inferences in favor of their infringement theory at the pleading stage, and alt-hough claim construction had not yet occurred, plaintiffs' amended complaint alleged a plausible infringement claim.