• Delaware Business Court Insider

    Future Brightens for Quinn Emanuel Hair Treatment Case

    May 07, 2019

    Judge Joseph Bataillon says he will enjoin L'Oreal from marketing products that infringe a patent held by Olaplex LLC—notwithstanding a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision finding the patent invalid.

  • TQ Delta, LLC v. 2Wire, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2019-05-01
    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 and Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Peter J. McAndrews, Thomas J. Wimbiscus, James P. Murphy, Paul W. McAndrews, Anna M. Targowska and Rajendra Chiplunkar, McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd., Chicago, IL for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Jody C. Barillare, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brett Schuman, Rachel M. Walsh and Monte M.F. Cooper, Goodwin Procter LLP, San Francisco for defendant.

    Case Number: D68548

    In this patent infringement action, the court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment of no invalidity as to patent eli-gibility and indefiniteness, but it denied the remainder of the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.

  • NASDI Holdings, LLC v. N. Am. Leasing, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2019-04-24
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Construction
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor McCormick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian C. Ralston and Matthew A. Golden, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael Dockterman, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, Chicago, IL for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Joseph B. Cicero, Paul D. Brown, and Stephanie H. Dallaire, Chipman Brown Cicero & Cole, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Mark L. McAlpine, Douglas W. Eyre, McAlpine PC, Auburn Hills, MI for defendants.

    Case Number: D68536

    Plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on their breach of contract claim and defendants' affirmative defenses where plaintiffs' contractual notice obligation did not apply to its claim for indemnification, plaintiffs had no duty to mitigate prior to defendants' breach, and unclean hands was not a defense to a purely legal claim for breach.

  • Delaware Business Court Insider

    Chancery Court Interprets Contractual Indemnification Clause

    April 24, 2019

    The Delaware Court of Chancery recently analyzed an indemnification clause and performed other contract interpretation in NASDI Holdings v. North American Leasing.

  • Atl. Bldg. Assocs. v. Trujillo

    Publication Date: 2019-04-17
    Practice Area: Administrative Law | Labor Law
    Industry: Construction
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Rennie
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Andrew J. Carmine, Elzufon Austin & Mondell for appellant.
    for defendant: Arthur M. Krawitz and Tara E. Bustard, Doroshow, Pasquale, Krawitz & Bhaya for appellee.

    Case Number: D68526

    The Industrial Accident Board's ruling was remanded for it to clarify whether its extensive review, of a prime contractor's efforts to verify that a subcontractor's workers' compensation insurance extended to Delaware, was conducted under a due diligence standard rather than a strict liability standard.

  • Delaware Business Court Insider

    Bloomberg Denied Fees in Infringement Case Over Use of Stock Symbols

    March 28, 2019

    U.S. Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark ruled there was no evidence Quest Licensing Corp. had acted in bad faith by pursuing its claims.

  • SC&A Constr., Inc. v. Potter

    Publication Date: 2019-03-20
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
    Industry: Construction
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Donald L Logan and Victoria K. Petrone, Logan & Petrone, LLC, New Castle, DE for petitioner.
    for defendant: Samuel L. Guy, Wilmington, DE for respondents.

    Case Number: D68498

    The court denied a contractor's motion to reopen a case for supplemental relief, because the contractor could have raised the issue previously, but did not do so.

  • Hoyd v. Trussway Holdings, LLC

    Publication Date: 2019-03-13
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Construction | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Thomas A. Uebler and Kerry M. Porter, McCollom D'Emilio Smith Uebler LLC, Wilmington, DE for petitioner.
    for defendant: Michael F. Bonkowski, Nicholas J. Brannick, G. David Dean and Bradley P. Lehman, Cole Schotz P.C., Wilmington, DE for re-spondent.

    Case Number: D68488

    In this appraisal matter, the court relied on a discounted cash flow analysis to arrive at the fair value of the shares on the date of the merger.

  • Cardona v. Hitachi Koki Co., Ltd.

    Publication Date: 2019-02-20
    Practice Area: Products Liability
    Industry: Manufacturing | Retail
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Rennie
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: David A. Boswell, Hudson, Jones, Jaywork & Fisher, LLC; Brian D. Kent and Samuel I. Reich, Laffey, Bucci & Kent, LLP for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Thomas J. Gerard and Bradley D. Remick, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin; Kenneth M. Doss, Casarino Christman Shalk Ransom & Doss, P.A. for defendants.

    Case Number: D68463

    Court could exercise personal jurisdiction over foreign manufacturer in products liability claim where it took affirmative steps, including formation of a domestic subsidiary, to place its products in the stream of commerce within the state, which led to plaintiff's alleged injury in the state.

  • New York Law Journal

    'Daimler' Strikes Again

    February 19, 2019

    In their Burden of Proof column, David Paul Horowitz and Lukas M. Horowitz discuss the recent decision in 'Aybar', in which the Second Department confronted the question of whether a foreign corporation's registration to do business in New York under BCL §§1301(a) and 1304(a)(6) constitutes consent to general jurisdiction in New York. The decision effectively shuts the door, for now, to a New York court's exercise of general jurisdiction over a corporate defendant which is neither incorporated, nor maintains it principal place of business, in New York.