Plaintiff failed to plead demand futility for derivative complaint where controller's ability to remove board members by itself could not establish a lack of independence and a majority of the board's financial ties did not prevent them from exercising independent judgment.

Court declined to dismiss breach of contract claim where the statute of frauds did not conclusively apply and where there were factual disputes over whether the work under the alleged contract fell within the scope of plaintiff's employment.

Receipt of notice of infringement only a day prior to the filing of the complaint was insufficient to charge defendant with pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents.

Adversary proceeding asserting inverse condemnation claim failed where state government seized possession of facility necessary to prevent dangerous environmental contamination when owner ran out of funds to operate the facility.

Court set nominal bond as a condition for ordering the reissuance of a stock certificate, where there was no dispute over ownership of the stock and a low likelihood that the original certificate had been transferred or pledged, and where the corporation's liability for the certificate was limited by law to the value of the bond.

Court construed patent terms as having their plain and ordinary meaning where there was no language in the patent specifications supporting limitations on the claim scope.

Court rejected assertion that patent claims were indefinite where intrinsic record provided enough explanation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand the scope of the claim and when a product would fall within that scope.

Court dismissed derivative complaint where single-member special litigation committee conducted adequate review of the worthiness of the litigation and its conclusions were sufficiently supported by evidence, and there was an insufficient basis to question the single member's independence from other board members potentially facing liability.

Court denied summary judgment to defendants for plaintiffs' contributory infringement claim where there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether defendants' product had other substantial non-infringing uses or whether defendants manufactured the product specifically for use in a manner that infringed upon plaintiffs' patents.

Court declined to strike patent invalidity defense raised by licensee where it could continue to accrue royalty obligations under the terms of the license agreement despite the patents having expired and other parties who may have licensed or infringed upon the patent would also benefit from a finding of invalidity.