Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
281 results for '* industry:"Technology Media and Telecom"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2022-06-28
Practice Area: Corporate Entities
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Delaware Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Traynor
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Frank E. Noyes, II, Offit Kurman, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Adam K. Bult, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Las Vegas, NV; Jeremy Eicher, Eicher Law LLC, Wilmington, DE; Alan M. Dershowitz, Cambridge, MA for appellants.
for defendant: Jennifer C. Voss, Cliff C. Gardner, Elisa M.C. Klein, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE for appellee.
Case Number: D69868
Chancery court erred in holding company's majority shareholder and controller in contempt of violating an exclusive jurisdiction order where shareholder was not a party to the out-of-state action filed in contempt of the chancery court's order and where controlling stake did not itself make shareholder personally liable for the company's conduct.
Publication Date: 2022-06-14
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Davis
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kevin R. Shannon, Christopher N. Kelly, Daniel M. Rusk, IV, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; William C. O’Neil, Gretchen V. Scavo, Matthew Durkin, Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL for plaintiff.
for defendant: Melissa D. Donimirski, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Timothy W. Weber, Joseph P. Kenny, Weber, Crabb & Wein, P.A., St. Petersburg, FL for defendants.
Case Number: D69852
Fraudulent misrepresentation claims dismissed where the alleged statements constituted forward-looking plans rather than existing facts and there was no evidence showing the speaker had no intention of fulfilling those plans.
Publication Date: 2022-06-14
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Manufacturing | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stacey A. Scrivani, Stevens & Lee, P.C., Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Joanna J. Cline, Christopher B. Chuff, Emily L. Wheatley, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: D69850
Direct corporate claims were equitably tolled under statute of limitations where plaintiff, who had superior information rights as member and manager, sufficiently alleged that controller had intentionally manipulated operations and financial records to conceal misconduct.
Publication Date: 2022-05-31
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Philip A. Rovner, Jonathan A. Choa, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Paul J. Andre, Lisa Kobialka, James Hannah, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Menlo Park, CA; Jonathan S. Caplan, Aaron M. Frankel, Marcus A. Colucci, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Brian P. Egan, MORRIS, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; William F. Lee, Sarah B. Petty, Kate Saxton, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA; Amy Kreiger Wigmore, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, D.C.; Mary (Mindy) V. Sooter, Nora Q.E. Passamaneck, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Denver, CO for defendant.
Case Number: D69837
Jury verdict of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents overturned where plaintiff's expert failed to offer a linking argument between the patent claims and the alleged equivalent infringing product, but instead merely offered generalized and conclusory testimony about their similarity.
Publication Date: 2022-05-31
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: John G. Harris, Berger Harris LLP, Wilmington, DE; Douglas R. Hirsch, Ben Hutman, James Ancone, Sadis & Goldberg LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Douglas D. Herrmann, Emily L. Wheatley, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, Wilmington, DE; Pamela S. Palmer, Kevin Crisp, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendants.
Case Number: D69830
Plaintiffs could not pursue derivative claims that arose prior to the corporate defendant's acquisition of stock, where there were no exigent circumstances to warrant granting equitable standing or to look past the corporate forms to afford standing to the prior holding company's sole owner.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors:
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2022-05-17
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Nathan A. Cook, Block & Leviton LLP, Wilmington, DE; Kurt M. Heyman, Aaron M. Nelson, Melissa N. Donimirski, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jason M. Leviton, Joel A. Fleming, Lauren G. Milgroom, Block & Leviton LLP, Boston, MA; Gregory V. Varallo, Andrew E. Blumberg, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Wilmington, DE; Alla Zayenchik, Thomas James, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: David C. McBride, Martin S. Lessner, James M. Yoch, Jr., Paul J. Loughman, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; William Savitt, Ryan A. McLeod, Anitha Reddy, Adam M. Gogolak, David E. Kirk, Zachary M. David, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, New York, NY; Peter J. Walsh, Jr., Brian C. Ralston, Tyler J. Leavengood, Jaclyn C. Levy, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Richard B. Harper, Baker Botts LLP, New York, NY; Thomas E. O’Brien, Baker Botts LLP, Dallas, TX for defendants.
Case Number: D69818
Summary judgment on director fiduciary claims denied where the evidence was not so overwhelming for the court to find, as a matter of law, that a majority of directors were independent and thus the board could exercise its business judgment to enter into challenged transactions.
Publication Date: 2022-05-17
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Electronics | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Stark
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Neal C. Belgam, Eve H. Omerod, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE; Seth Ard, Beatrice Franklin, Max Straus, Susman Godfrey, LLP, New York, NY; John Lahad, Ibituroko-Emi Lawson, Robert Travis Korman, Brenda Adimora, Susman Godfrey, LLP, Houston, TX; Kalpana Srinivasan, Susman Godfrey, LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Kemper Diehl, Susman Godfrey, LLP, Seattle, WA for plaintiff.
for defendant: Jeremy D. Anderson, Fish & Richardson P.C., Wilmington, DE; Steven R. Katz, Jacob Pecht, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Boston, MA; R. Andrew Schewentker, Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, DC; Eda Stark, Fish & Richardson P.C., Atlanta, GA; Kenneth L. Dorsney, Cortlan S. Hitch, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brian C. Riopelle, David E. Finkelson, McGuireWoods LLP, Richmond, VA; Jason W. Cook, McGuireWoods LLP, Dallas, TX; David E. Moore, Bindu A. Palapura, Stephanie E. O’Byrne, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Robert W. Unikel, Michelle Marek Figueiredo, John Cotiguala, Matt Lind, Paul Hastings LLP, Chicago, IL; Robert R. Laurenzi, Chad J. Peterman, Paul Hastings LLP, New York, NY; Arielle Bratton, Paul Hastings LLP, San Diego, CA; Ginger Anders, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Washington, DC; Rodger D. Smith II, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jeffri A. Kaminski, Justin E. Pierce, Calvin R. Nelson, Venable LLP, Washington, DC; Neha Bhat, Venable LLP, New York, NY; Jack B. Blumenfeld, Brian P. Egan, Anthony D. Raucci, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Frank C. Cimino Jr., Megan S. Woodworth, Jeffri A. Kaminsi, Calvin R. Nelson, Neha Bhat, Venable, Washington, DC for defendants.
Case Number: D69819
Court denied defendants' motions for summary judgment of non-infringement where the evidence created a triable issue as to whether defendants' accused products met the claim limitation of a "document" because the product applications could have permitted users to edit files in the application.
Publication Date: 2022-05-10
Practice Area: Antitrust
Industry: Legal Services | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Stark
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Michael J. Flynn, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Dale M. Cendali, Joshua L. Simmons, Eric A. Loverro, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY; Daniel E. Laytin, Christa C. Cottrell, Alyssa C. Kalisky, Cameron D. Ginder, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago, IL for plaintiffs.
for defendant: David E. Moore, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Gabriel M. Ramsey, Warrington Parker, Jacob Canter, Crowell & Moring LLP, San Francisco, CA; Mark A. Klapow, Lisa Kimmel, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, DC for defendant.
Case Number: D69812
Tying claims under the Sherman Act and state unfair competition statutes permitted to proceed where there was sufficient evidence that bundled products did constitute separate products serving separate markets and where unilateral action was sufficient to support a restraint of trade claim.
Publication Date: 2022-05-10
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael W. McDermott, Peter C. McGivney, Berger Harris LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
for defendant: James D. Taylor, Jr., Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP, Wilmington, DE; Joseph L. Manson III, Law Offices of Joseph L. Manson III, Alexandria, VA for defendants.
Case Number: D69807
The court found that director defendant named in a shareholder derivative suit was not entitled to indemnification for his defense costs because the settlement agreement he negotiated did not constitute success on the merits.
Publication Date: 2022-05-03
Practice Area: Class Actions
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
Attorneys: For plaintiff: R. Bruce McNew, Cooch and Taylor, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Randall J. Baron, David A. Knotts, Robbins Geller Rudman & Down, LLP, San Diego, CA; Kent Bronson, Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Kevin G. Abrams, J. Peter Shindel, Jr., Matthew L. Miller, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Richard D. Heins, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Patricia L. Enerio, Melissa N. Donimirski, Jamie L. Brown, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael A. Weidinger, Elizabeth Wilburn Joyce, Pinckney, Weidinger, Urban & Joyce, Greenville, DE; Lori Marks-Esterman, Renee M. Zaytsev, Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: D69798
The court approved a modification to a class action settlement and a more efficient distribution method than the traditional notice-and-claim process.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read