Filter This View

  • I-Mab Biopharma v. Inhibrx, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2024-10-22
    Practice Area: Intellectual Property
    Industry: Biotechnology
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Burke
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Rodger D. Smith II, Anthony D. Raucci, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Ching-Lee Fukuda, Tai-Heng Cheng, Vania Wang, Sidley Austin LLP, New York, NY; Thomas A. Broughan III, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, DC; Brooke S. Böll, Sidley Austin LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Erik B. Fountain, McKool Smith, P.C., Dallas, TX for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Philip A. Rovner, Nicole K. Pedi, Tyler E. Cragg, Andrew M. Moshos, P. Andrew Smith, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Amy H. Candido, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., San Francisco, CA for defendant.
    Case Number: 22-276-CJB

    Court reserved decision on defendants' summary judgment motion after plaintiff's expert failed to quantify a value for allegedly misappropriated trade secrets.

  • Sage Chem., Inc. v. Supernus Pharm., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2024-05-27
    Practice Area: Antitrust
    Industry: Manufacturing | Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Burke
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Dominick T. Gattuso, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; W. Gordon Dobie, Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL; Susannah P. Torpey, Winston & Strawn LLP, New York, NY; Robert A. Julian, Baker & Hostetler LLP, San Francisco, CA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Gary W. Lipkin, Michelle C. Streifthau-Livizos, Saul Ewing LLP, Wilmington, DE; Charles O. Monk, II, Jordan D. Rosenfeld, Saul Ewing LLP, Baltimore, MD; Jeffrey S. Robbins, Saul Ewing LLP, Boston, MA; Michael F. Brockmeyer, David S. Shotlander, Haug Partners LLP, Washington, D.C.; Ralph E. Labaton, Aakruti G. Vakharia, Haug Partners LLP, New York, NY; Daniel M. Silver, Alexandra M. Joyce, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Erick J. Stock, Shireen Barday, Joshua Obear, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY; Beth Moskow-Schnoll, Tyler B. Burns, Ballard Spahr LLP, Wilmington, DE; Adam K. Levin, Benjamin Holt, Ilana Kattan, Kaitlyn Golden, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Washington, D.C. for defendants.
    Case Number: 22-1302-CJB

    Plaintiffs adequately pled antitrust claims by alleging various anticompetitive acts by defendants designed to prevent or delay market entry of competing products, which resulted in the failure of plaintiffs' product launch.

  • Oasis Tooling Inc. v. Siemens Indus. Software, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-12-04
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Electronics | Manufacturing | Software
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Burke
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Philip A. Rovner, Jonathan A. Choa, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Paul J. Andre, Lisa Kobialka, James Hannah, Timothy Layden, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Redwood Shores, CA; Aaron M. Frankel, Cristina L. Martinez, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Karen Jacobs, Cameron P. Clark, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; John D. Vandenberg, Kristin L. Cleveland, Mark W. Wilson, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, Portland, OR; Kristina R. Cary, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Boston, MA; Gregg F. LoCascio, P.C., Michael A. Pearson, Jr., Matthew J. McIntee, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, DC; Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Clement Naples, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY; Gabriel K. Bell, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC; Thomas W. Yeh, Latham & Watkins LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Brett M. Sanford, Daniel S. Todd, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA for defendants.
    Case Number: 22-151-CJB

    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.

  • Oasis Tooling, Inc. v. Siemens Indus. Software, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-06-20
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Electronics | Manufacturing | Software
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Burke
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Philip A. Rovner, Jonathan A. Choa, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Paul J. Andre, Lisa Kobialka, James Hannah, Timothy Layden, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Menlo Park, CA; Aaron M. Frankel, Cristina Martinez, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Karen Jacobs, Cameron P. Clark, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Kristin L. Cleveland, Mark W. Wilson, Salumeh R. Loesch, John D. Vandenberg, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, Portland, OR; Kristina R. Cary, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Boston, MA; Gregg F. LoCascio, P.C., Michael A. Pearson, Jr., Matthew J. McIntee, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, D.C.; Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Clement Naples, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY; Gabriel K. Bell, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, D.C.; Thomas W. Yeh, Latham & Watkins LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Daniel S. Todd, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA for defendants.
    Case Number: 22-151-CJB

    Patent did not claim ineligible subject matter where it recited an inventive concept that improved upon the prior art by claiming to solve limitations of previous systems through a specific procedure.

  • Guinn v. St. Jude Med., LLC

    Publication Date: 2021-12-14
    Practice Area: Products Liability
    Industry: Health Care | Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Burke
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: David G. Culley, Tybout, Redfearn & Pell, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff
    for defendant: Brian M. Rostocki, Reed Smith LLP, Wilmington, DE; J. David Bickham, Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA; Michael K. Brown, Reed Smith LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendants
    Case Number: D69645

    Motion to dismiss amended product liability claim involving medical device denied where the amended complaint asserted new facts further explaining the similarities between the product-in-suit and other products subject to consumer complaints and recalls.

  • Galderma Lab., L.P. v. Medinter US LLC

    Publication Date: 2020-03-25
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Health Care | Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Burke
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jack B. Blumenfeld and Michael J. Flynn, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Joseph A. Mahoney, Mayer Brown LLP, Charlotte, NC; B. Clayton McCraw and Ying-Zi Yang, Mayer Brown LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Melanie K. Sharp, James L. Higgins and Michelle M. Ovanesian, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Steven Lieberman, Rachel M. Echols, Daniel R. McCallum and Nicole M. DeAbrantes, Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C., Washington, DC for defendant.
    Case Number: D68922

    The court dismissed plaintiff's claim for direct patent infringement, but it denied the motion to dismiss as to the claim for indi-rect infringement.

  • Freed v. St. Jude Med., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2019-10-30
    Practice Area: Products Liability
    Industry: Health Care | Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Burke
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: David G. Culley, Tybout, Redfearn & Pell, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Brian M. Rostocki and Benjamin P. Chapple, Reed Smith LLP, Wilmington, DE; J. David Bickham, Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA; Lisa M. Baird, Reed Smith LLP, Miami, FL; and Michael K. Brown, Reed Smith LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendants.
    Case Number: D68751

    Products liability claims not dismissed where defendants failed to raise arguments in favor of dismissal in defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' prior version of their complaint containing similar or identical claims.