Filter This View

  • Valinge Innovation AB v. Halstead New England Corp.

    Publication Date: 2018-05-23
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Chemicals and Materials
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Adam W. Poff, Pilar G. Kraman, Laura Masurovsky, Sydney R. Kestle and Daniel C. Cooley for plaintiff
    for defendant: Denise S. Kraft, Brian A. Biggs, Nicholas G. Papastavros, Michael Strapp, Melissa Reinckens, Peter Maggiore and Aaron Fountain for defendants.
    Case Number: D68157

    The court's claim construction in this case related to technologies for manufacturing and installing flooring products.

  • Nexeon Ltd. v. EaglePicher Tech. LLC

    Publication Date: 2018-05-23
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Electronics
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Mary Matterer, Stephen R. Carden, Ann C. Palma and James V. Suggs for plaintiff
    for defendant: Thomas C. Grimm, Jeremy A. Tigan and Jennifer Hayes for defendants.
    Case Number: D68154

    The court engaged in claim construction of multiple terms associated with fabricating silicon-based fibers and particles for use in rechargeable lithium ion batteries.

  • Evonik Degussa GMBH v. Materia, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-05-02
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Chemicals and Materials
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Hillman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Eric James Evain, Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., Wilmington, DE; R. Eric Hutz, Rudolph E. Hutz, and Ryan P. Cox, Reed Smith LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for plaintiff
    for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld and Thomas C. Grimm, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for defendant.
    Case Number: D68118

    Jury verdict in favor of defendant on issue of willfulness proper where record contained sufficient evidence for jury to conclude defendant did not discover adverse nature of plaintiffs patent during the period of its infringement.

  • Evonik Degussa GMBH v. Materia, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-04-25
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Chemicals and Materials
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Hillman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Eric James Evain, Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., Wilmington, DE; R. Eric Hutz, Rudolph E. Hutz, and Ryan P. Cox, Reed Smith LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for plaintiff
    for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld and Thomas C. Grimm, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for defendant.
    Case Number: D68118

    Jury verdict in favor of defendant on issue of willfulness proper where record contained sufficient evidence for jury to conclude defendant did not discover adverse nature of plaintiffs patent during the period of its infringement.

  • Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. v. Power Integrations, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-03-28
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Hardware
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: John G. Day and Andrew C. Mayo, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Blair M. Jacobs, Christina A. Ondrick, and Patrick J. Stafford, Paul Hastings LLP, Washington, DC, attorneys for plaintiffs
    for defendant: Joseph B. Warden, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Frank E. Scherkenbach, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Boston, MA; Howard G. Pollack and Michael R. Headly, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Redwood City, CA, attorneys for defendant.
    Case Number: D68087

    Final judgment denied where jury instruction overruled on appeal of related case between the parties, such that the potential for the jury to reach a different result with correct instructions meant that the instructions were plain error and necessitated a new trial.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Constangy’s Field Guide to The Americans with Disabilities Act and Its Amendments 2014

    Authors: Michael D. Malfitano

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Watson Labs., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-03-28
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Sleet
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: D68086

    Claimed composition not invalid as obvious where prior art would not have directed person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed composition, and where the exponential of potential compositions meant that a POSA would not have been naturally directed to the claimed composition.

  • Green Mountain Glass LLC v. Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-03-21
    Practice Area: Damages | Patent Litigation
    Industry: Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Sleet
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: D68082

    Plaintiffs in this patent infringement matter were entitled to pre-judgement interest where the jury found defendant will-fully infringed, but the court denied the parties other post-trial motions.

  • D&M Holdings, Inc. v. Sonos, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-03-07
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Michael J. Flynn, John M. Jackson, Matthew C. Acosta, Blake T. Dietrich, Chris-topher J. Rourk, Robert P. Latham, David Folsom and Wasif Qureshi for plaintiffs
    for defendant: Philip A. Rovner, Jonathan A. Choa, George I. Lee, Sean M. Sullivan, Rory P. Shea, J. Dan Smith, Mi-chael P. Boyea, Cole B. Richter and Jae Y. Park for defendant.
    Case Number: D68065

    In this patent litigation matter, the court engaged in claim construction in connection with issues arising in defendants motions for summary judgment.

  • Idenix Pharm. LLC v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-02-28
    Practice Area: Damages | Patent Litigation
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Steven J. Balick, John G. Day, Andrew C. Mayo, Calvin P. Griffith, Ryan B. McCrum, Michael S. Wein-stein, Bradley W. Harrison, Anthony M. Insogna, John D. Kinton, John M. Michalik, Lisa L. Furby, Stephanie E. Parker and Jennifer L. Swize for plaintiffs
    for defendant: Martina Tyreus Hufnal, Douglas E. McCann, Elizabeth M. Flanagan, Joseph B. Warden, Santosh V. Coutinho, Frank E. Scherkenbach, Jenny Shmuel, W. Chad Shear, Jonathan E. Singer, Tasha M. Fran-cis and Corrin N. Drakulich for defendant.
    Case Number: D68058

    A patent sufficiently met the written description requirements of 35 U.S.C. §112, but another patent was invalid for lack of enablement.

  • TQ Delta, LLC v. 2Wire, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-02-21
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Peter J. McAndrews, Paul W. McAndrews and Rajendra A. Chiplunkar for plaintiff
    for defendant: Colm F. Connolly, Jody Barillare, Brett M. Schuman, Rachel M. Walsh and David L. Simson for defend-ant 2Wire, Inc.; Kenneth L. Dorsney, Paul M. Sykes, Melissa Hotze and Elizabeth J. Rader for defend-ants Adtran Inc. and Zyxel Communications Inc.
    Case Number: D68053

    In this claim construction matter, the court construed various terms relating to asynchronous transfer mode communications systems.