Filter This View

  • Barry v. Stryker Corp.

    Publication Date: 2023-03-28
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Biotechnology | Health Care
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Regina S.E. Murphy, Barnes & Thornburg, LLP, Wilmington, DE; D . Clay Holloway, Mitchell Stockwell, Courtney S. Dabbiere, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP, Atlanta, GA; Dario A. Machleidt, Christopher P. Damitio, Kathleen R.Geyer, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP, Seattle, WA; Taylor J. Pfingst, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Andrew W. Rinehart, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP, Winston-Salem, NC for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Jeremy Tigan, Brian P. Egan, Cameron P. Clark, Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jonathan G. Graves, Joseph E. Van Tassel, Cooley LLP, Reston, VA; Adam M. Pivovar, Cooley, LLP, Washington, DC; Alissa M. Wood, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA; Chad T. Nitta, Jason S. Jackson, Heather N Tilley, Kutak Rock, LLP, Denver, CO for defendants.
    Case Number: D70177

    The court conducted a detailed analysis of claim construction terms in a patent litigation matter concerning spinal surgeries and deformities.

  • Kiger v. Mollenkopf

    Publication Date: 2021-11-30
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Blake A. Bennett, Cooch & Taylor, P.A. Wilmington, DE, Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Albert Y. Chang, Anne Beste, Yury A. Kolesnikov, Bottini & Bottini, Inc., La Jolla, CA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Peter J. Walsh, Jr., Jonathan A. Choa, Potter, Anderson & Corroon, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Koji Fukumura, Peter M. Adams, Heather Speers, Cooley, LLP, San Diego, CA; Brian French, Cooley, LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
    Case Number: D69626

    The court held that plaintiffs' claims for breach of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties, and unjust enrichment should be dismissed for failing to plead demand futility.

  • Alarm.com, Inc. v. SecureNet Tech., LLC

    Publication Date: 2019-09-04
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Software
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kenneth Dorsney, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE, Ian R. Liston, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., Wilmington, DE, James C. Yoon, Ryan R. Smith, Christopher D. Mays, and Mary A. Procaccio-Flowers, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., Palo Alto, CA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld and Stephen J. Kraftschik, Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Erik B. Milch, Frank Pietrantonio, and Dustin Knight, Cooley LLP, Reston, VA, Rose Whelan, Lisa Fuller Schweir, and Naina Soni, Cooley LLP, Washington, DC for defendant.
    Case Number: D68686

    Court did not erroneously construe software limitation as a means-plus-function term where the word "means" was absent from the claim and where the claim as a whole failed to connote sufficient structure to a POSA.

  • Alarm.com, Inc. v. Securenet Tech. LLC

    Publication Date: 2019-01-23
    Practice Area: Expert Witnesses | Patent Litigation
    Industry: E-Commerce
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Mary B. Matterer and Kenneth L. Dorsney, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE; Ian R. Liston, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Wilmington, DE; James C. Yoon, Ryan R. Smith, Christopher D. Mays and Mary A. Procaccio-Flowers, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Palo Alto, CA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld and Stephen J. Kraftschik, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Erik B. Milch and Frank Pietrantonio, Cooley LLP, Reston, VA; Rose Whelan and Naina Soni, Cooley LLP, Washington, DC for defendant.
    Case Number: D68433

    Portions of defendant's motion to exclude an expert's lost profit opinion went to the weight and not the admissibility of the evidence, but the court excluded other parts of the expert's testimony.