• Sprint Commc'ns Co. LP v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2020-01-08
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: R. Montgomery Donaldson and Christina B. Vavala, Polsinelli PC, Wilmington, DE; B. Trent Webb, Aaron E. Hankel, Ryan J. Schletzbaum, Ryan D. Dykal, Jordan T. Bergsten, Lauren E. Douville, Mark D. Schafer, Maxwell C. McGraw, Samuel J. LaRoque, Robert H. Reckers and Michael W. Gray, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kansas City, MO and Houston, TX for Sprint Communications.
    for defendant: Kelly E. Farnan, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; David S. Benyacar, Daniel L. Reisner and Robert J. Ka-terberg, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, New York, NY and Washington, DC; Gregory Arovas, Jeanne M. Heffernan, James E. Marina, Luke L. Dauchot and Bao Nguyen, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY, Los Angeles, CA and San Francisco, CA for Charter Communications. Steven J. Balick and Andrew C. Mayo, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Robinson Vu, Lindsay Volpenhein Cutié, Amy E. Bergeron and Timothy S. Durst, Baker Botts LLP, Houston, TX and Dallas, TX for Media-com Communications, WideOpenWest Networks, Atlantic Broadband Fin. and Grande Communications Networks. Phillip A. Rovner, Jonathan A. Choa and Alan R. Silverstein, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brian M. Buroker, Omar F. Amin, Jessica Altman and Robert Vincent, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC and Dallas, TX for Frontier Com-munications.

    Case Number: D68836

    The court construed patent terms relating to technology for making telephone calls over the internet.

  • British Telecomm. plc v. Fortinet Inc.

    Publication Date: 2020-01-08
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Connolly
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Philip A. Rovner and Jonathan A. Choa, Potter, Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; James H. Shalek, Baldassare Vinti, Nolan M. Goldber, and Fabio E. Tarud, Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld and Brian P. Egan, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; John Neukom and James Y. Pak, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Palo Alto, CA for defendant.

    Case Number: D68831

    Motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds pursuant to an exclusive forum selection agreement denied where it was not clear that plaintiffs would be able to assert their U.S. patent infringement claims in the required foreign court.

  • SZ DJI Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Autel Robotics USA LLC

    Publication Date: 2020-01-01
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Aerospace | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jody C. Barillare, Amy M. Dudash, Willard K. Tom, Jon R. Roellke, Ryan Kantor and Bradford A. Cangro, Morgan, Lewis & Boekius LLP, Wilmington, DE and Washington, DC; Kelly E. Farnan and Christine D. Haynes, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; David M. Farnum and Sherry X. Wu, Anova Law Group, PLLC, Sterling, VA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Anne Shea Gaza, Robert M. Vrana and Samantha G. Wilson, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Tim-othy C. Bickham, John Caracappa, Jonathan B. Sallet, Scott M. Richey, Beau M. Goodrick, Andrew Xue and Michael Flynn-O’Brien, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Washington, DC and San Francisco, CA for defendants.

    Case Number: D68828

    In its claim construction ruling, the court rejected defendants' arguments regarding indefiniteness in this patent matter.

  • Super Interconnect Tech. LLC v. HP Inc.

    Publication Date: 2020-01-01
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Consumer Products | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Connolly
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian Farnan and Michael Farnan , Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jeffrey Bragalone, Jonathan Rastegar and T. William Ken-nedy, Bragalone Conroy P.C., Dallas, TX for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Jack Blumenfeld and Jennifer Ying, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Cory Davis, Theresa Weisenberger, Daniel Goettle and Jennifer Kurcz, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Atlanta, GA, Philadelphia, PA and Chicago, IL for defendant.

    Case Number: D68827

    Plaintiff failed to provide fair notice of how defendant's accused products directly infringed on plaintiff's patents, and because the court concluded plaintiff did not adequately allege direct infringement, it could not recover for induced infringement either.

  • In re ChanBond, LLC Patent Litig.

    Publication Date: 2020-01-01
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Electronics | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen B. Brauerman and Sara E. Bussiere, Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Mark S. Raskin, Robert A. Whitman, Michael S. De Vincenzo, John F. Petrsoric, and Andrea Pacelli, Mishcon De Reya New York LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld and Jennifer Ying, Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael Brody and Jonathan Retsky, Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL; David P. Enzminger, Winston & Strawn LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Krishnan Padmanabhan, Winston & Strawn LLP, New York, NY; James Lin, Winston & Strawn LLP, Menlo Park, CA for defendant.

    Case Number: D68823

    Expert opinion regarding written description and enablement excluded where the expert focused on the accused technologies and failed to analyze whether the specifications sufficiently described the patent claims.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Massachusetts Legal Ethics & Malpractice 2017

    Authors: James S. Bolan, Sara N. Holden

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Gracenote, Inc. v. Free Stream Media Corp.

    Publication Date: 2019-12-25
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: David E. Moore, Bindu A. Palapura and Stephanie E. O’Byrne, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wil-mington, DE; Steven Yovits, Mark Scott, Clifford Katz and Malavika Rao, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Chicago, IL for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Kelly E. Farnan, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Sten Jensen, Clement Seth Roberts and Alyssa Caridis, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Washington, DC, San Francisco, CA and Los Angeles, CA for defendant.

    Case Number: D68817

    Plaintiff's patents contained inventive concepts that were directed to address known issues, so they were not simply abstract ideas.

  • Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC

    Publication Date: 2019-12-25
    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, Wimington, DE; Amir Alavi,, Demetrios Anaipakos, Alisa A. Lipski, Timothy Shelby, Scott W. Clark, Monica Uddin, Nathan Campbell, and Louis Liao, Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing, P.C., Houston, TX for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Frederick L. Cottrell and Jason J. Rawnsley, Richards, Layton & Finger, PA, Wilmington, DE; Gregory P. Stone, Eric P. Tuttle, Zachary M. Briers, Hannah Dubina, Ashley D. Kaplan and Peter A. Detre, Munger, Tolles & Olson, LLP, Los Angeles, CA and San Francisco, CA for defendants.

    Case Number: D68816

    Court ruled that a preamble term was limiting because it was essential to understand the remaining terms in the claim, and accepted defendant's proposed construction where the intrinsic evidence required construing the term as requiring a mathematical relationship.

  • Ocimum Biosolutions (India) Ltd. v. AstraZeneca UK Ltd.

    Publication Date: 2019-12-25
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge LeGrow
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kevin S. Mann, Michael L. Vild and Christopher P. Simon, Cross & Simon, LLC, Wilmington, DE; C. Ed-ward Polk, Jr., Polk Law PLLC, Ashburn, VA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Michael P. Kelly, Daniel M. Silver, Benjamin A. Smyth and Steven P. Wood, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Dane H. Butswinkas of Williams & Connolly, LLP, Washington, D.C. for defendant.

    Case Number: D68819

    Certain red flags signaled the existence of information that would have led a prudent person to discover po-tential causes of action for breach of contract or trade secret violations.

  • In re Oracle Corp. Derivative Litig.

    Publication Date: 2019-12-18
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Software | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joel Friedlander, Jeffrey M. Gorris and Christopher P. Quinn, Friedlander & Gorris, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Randal J. Baron, David A. Knotts and Christopher H. Lyons, Robbins Geller Rudman & Down LLP, San Diego, CA and Nashville, TN; Brian J. Robbins, Stephen J. Oddo and Gregory Del Gaizo, Robbins LLP, San Diego, CA for lead plaintiff.
    for defendant: Elena C. Norman, Richard J. Thomas, Benjamin M. Potts, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Peter A. Wald, Blair Connelly and Rachel J. Rodriguez, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA and New York, NY for defendants Ellison and Catz. Kenneth J. Nachbar, John P. DiTomo, Thomas P. Will and Corinne R. Moini, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Sara B. Brody, Jaime A. Bartlett and Matthew J. Dolan, Sidley Austin LLP, San Francisco, CA and Palo Alto, CA for defendants Hurd Estate, Henley, Conrades, James, Panetta, Boskin, Berg, Garcia-Molina, Seligman, Chizen and Bingham. A. Thompson Bayliss and E. Wade Houston, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; John W. Spiegel, George M. Garvey and John M. Gildersleeve, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendant Goldberg. Andrew S. Dupre, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Robert P. Feldman and Christopher D. Kercher, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sulli-van LLP, Redwood Shores, CA and New York, NY for defendant Nelson. Thomas A. Beck, Blake Rohrbacher, Susan M. Han-nigan, Matthew D. Perri and Daniel E. Kaprow, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE for nominal defendant Ora-cle Corp.

    Case Number: D68809

    Where a special litigation committee concluded that a litigation asset should be turned over to the lead plaintiff to pursue a derivative action on behalf of the corporation, plaintiff was entitled to all relevant documents considered by the committee.

  • M2M Solutions, LLC v. Sierra Wireless America, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2019-12-11
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stamatios Stamoulis and Richard C. Weinblatt, Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs. Wendy Verland and Jeffrey D. Ahdoot, Blackbird Technologies, Boston, MA for plaintiff Blackbird Tech LLC. Thomas C. Grimm and Jeremy A. Tigan, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE
    for defendant: Ronald F. Lopez and Jennifer Hayes, Nixon Peabody LLP, San Francisco, CA and Los Angeles, CA for Sierra Wireless defend-ants. Jack B. Blumenfeld and Rodger D. Smith II, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; David Loewenstein and Clyde A. Shuman, Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer, Wilmington, DE for defendant Telit Wireless Solutions.

    Case Number: D68804

    In this patent claim construction matter, the court concluded that a preamble could be limiting, and a prior statement was not sufficiently specific to qualify as a prosecution history disclaimer.