Blog – Delaware Intellectual Property Litigation

http://delawareintellectualproperty.foxrothschild.com/

Greg explores the decisions issued by the U.S. District Court of Delaware in the areas of antitrust and intellectual property law in the firm's Delaware Intellectual Property Litigation blog.

Recent Blog Posts

  • Plaintiffs Awarded Attorneys’ Fees in D.Del. Trademark Infringement Action By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Maryellen Noreika in Dr. Matthias Rath et al. v. Vita Sanotec, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 17-953-MN (D.Del. October 2, 2020), the Court granted the motion of Plaintiffs Dr. Matthias Rath, Dr. Rath International and Dr. Rath Health Programs B.V. (“Plaintiffs”) seeking attorneys’ fees be assessed against Defendants Vita Sanotec, Inc., Vita Sanotec B.V. and Frank Krailing. By way of background, Plaintiffs filed the case against Defendants alleging claims for misappropriation of Plaintiffs’... More
  • Judge Noreika Denies Defendant’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration of Ruling on the Parties’ Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment in Trademark Infringement Action By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Maryellen Noreika in New Balance Athletics, Inc. v. USA New Bunren International Co. Ltd., LLC, Civil Action No. 17-1700 (MN), the Court denied Defendant New Bunren’s motion for partial reconsideration of the Court’s prior ruling concluding that Plaintiff New Balance Athletics was entitled to statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. §1117(c) of the Lanham Act. In its prior opinion, the Court found that Defendant was liable for trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. §1114, false designation... More
  • Chief Judge Stark Grants Google’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, Civil Action No. 14-1115-LPS (D.Del. September 9, 2020), the Court granted defendant Google LLC’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement with respect to the claims alleging that Google Sheets infringed the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,590,259 (“the ‘259 patent), 5,748,545 (“the ‘545 patent”), and 6,282,551 (“the ‘551 patent”).  The Court found that, “[t]aking the evidence in the light most favorable... More
  • District of Delaware Announces Plan to Transition to Phase 2 of the District’s Re-Opening Guidelines on September 15, 2020 By Standing Order entered by Chief District Judge Leonard P. Stark on September 1, 2020, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware announced its plan to transition into Phase 2 of its Re-Opening Guidelines on September 15, 2020, subject to conditions with respect to the coronavirus  in Delaware and the surrounding region.  A few significant matters contained in the Order are as follows: (1) all civil and criminal jury selections and jury trials scheduled to begin before... More
  • Chief Judge Stark Denies Defendants’ Request to Convert Remote Bench Trial Ordered in Light of COVID-19 Pandemic to In-Person Trial By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Xcoal Energy & Resources v. Bluestone Energy Sales Corp., Civil Action No. 18-819-LPS (D.Del. August 18, 2020), the Court denied Defendants’ renewed emergency request to convert the remote bench trial scheduled to begin on August 25, 2020 to a partially-remote or in-person trial. In denying Defendants’ request, the Court explained that the bench trial originally was scheduled to begin on September 16, 2019, the Court had granted Defendants two prior... More
  • Judge Andrews Finds Plaintiff Failed to Plead a Plausible Trade Secret Misappropriation Claim By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Lithero, LLC v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Civil Action No. 19-2320-RGA (D.Del. August 13, 2020), the Court found that Plaintiff failed to plead a plausible trade secret misappropriation claim under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) despite the fact that the Court had granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file its complaint under seal to avoid any possible public disclosure. The Court explained that “to adequately plead trade secret... More
  • Following ANDA Trial, Chief Judge Stark Finds Remaining Defendants’ Proposed Drug Products Infringe Asserted Claims of Patents-in-Suit Connected to Plaintiffs’ Eliquis® Product By Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. et al v. Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 17-374-LPS (D.Del. August 5, 2020)(consolidated) following a nine (9) day bench trial, the Court found that defendant Sigmapharm’s ANDA products infringe the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,967,208 (“the ‘208 patent”) and defendants Sigmapharm, Sunshine Lake and Unichem’s ANDA products infringe the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,326,945 (“the ‘945 patent”).[1]  The Court... More
  • Judge Connolly Grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Patent Infringement Claims in Part and Denies in Part By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Colm F. Connolly in Dynamic Data Technologies, LLC v. Brightcove Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 19-1190-CFC (D.Del. July 20, 2020), the Court denied in part and granted in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s fifteen (15) count complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff’s complaint included alleged claims of direct infringement and indirect infringement with respect to the fifteen (15) patents-in-suit and a claim... More
  • Civil and Criminal Jury Trials in the District of Delaware Will Not Resume Until At Least August 31, 2020 due to COVID-19 Due to public safety concerns caused by COVID-19, by Standing Order entered by Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark dated July 16, 2020, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware continued all civil and criminal jury selections and jury trials scheduled to begin before August 31, 2020 until further order of the Court.  A copy of the Court’s Standing Order is attached.... More
  • Judge Andrews Grants Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ Claims of False Advertising By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Halosil Int’l, Inc. et al. v. Eco-Evolutions, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 18-1375-RGA (D.Del. July 14, 2020), the Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment after finding that no reasonable jury could conclude that Defendants’ advertisements were literally false and Plaintiffs’ breach of contact claim was time-barred. With respect to the false advertising claim, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants were liable under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, which prohibits... More