Intellectual Property – Miscellaneous
Judge Stark Denies Intervenor’s Motion for Reconsideration or Reargument In LD Display Co., Ltd. V. AU Optronics Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 06-726-LPS (D. Del. Feb. 14, 2011), Judge Stark denied intervenor Anvik Corporation’s motion to reconsider an order that denied its request to modify the protective order to allow Anvik access to certain sealed…
Intellectual Property – Transfer
Chief Judge Sleet Denies Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue In Apple Inc. v. High Tech Computer Corp., et al., C.A. No. 10-544-GMS (D. Del. Jan. 18, 2011), Apple Inc. filed a patent infringement action against High Tech Computer Corp., a/k/a HTC Corp., HTC (B.V.I.) Corp., HTC America, Inc. and Exedea, Inc. (collectively, “HTC”) alleging that…
Intellectual Property – Motions to Dismiss
Judge Stark Rules on Motions to Strike and Dismiss In Southco, Inc. v. Penn Engineering & Manufacturing Corp., C.A. No. 10-03-LPS (D. Del. Mar. 7, 2011), Judge Stark denied plaintiff Southco, Inc.’s motion to strike and dismiss, denied defendant Penn Engineering & Manufacturing Corp.’s (“PEM”) motion to strike and dismiss counterclaims, and denied PEM’s motion…
Delaware Intellectual Property Law Update: Progress Made in Delaware District Court Vacancies (Updated 27 May)
On Wednesday, May 11, 2011, President Obama nominated Richard G. Andrews to fill the vacancy in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Chancery Court Addresses Revlon Duties and Deal Protection Measures in Small-Cap Transaction
In In re Answers Shareholders Litigation, the Delaware Court of Chancery declined to preliminarily enjoin the acquisition of Answers Corp. and, in so doing, made several important observations regarding the board of directors' management of the sales process and negotiation of the definitive merger agreement, many of which are of particular significance to smaller corporations and their advisers.
Delaware’s Solvency Test: What Is It and Does It Make Sense?
This article examines the ambiguities in Delaware solvency law and recommends that the Delaware courts clarify the law and adopt uniform solvency tests.
In re Atheros Communications, Inc. Shareholder Litigation: Court of Chancery Requires Disclosure of Percentage of Financial Advisory Fees That Were Contingent on Transaction Closing
In In re Atheros Communications, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, the Court of Chancery preliminarily enjoined Atheros Communications, Inc. from holding a meeting of its stockholders to vote on a $3.1 billion all-cash merger agreement with Qualcomm Incorporated, pending appropriate distribution of curative proxy disclosures regarding contingency fees to be paid to Atheros' financial advisor, and the potential employment of Atheros' CEO by Qualcomm.
Fletcher International, Ltd. v. ION Geophysical Corp.: Court of Chancery Interprets Consent Right of Preferred Stockholder
The efforts of Fletcher International, Ltd. to block a joint venture between ION Geophysical Corp. and China National Petroleum Corporation have resulted in multiple opinions interpreting Fletcher's rights as a preferred stockholder of ION.
Olson v. ev3, Inc., et al.: Court of Chancery Addresses Validity of Top-Up Option
In Olson v. ev3, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 5583-VCL (Del. Ch. Feb. 21, 2011), the Court of Chancery awarded plaintiff's counsel the full amount of attorneys' fees and expenses requested—$1.1 million—for what was, according to the Court, "the first meaningful full-scale challenge to the use of a top-up option."
S. Muoio & Co. LLC v. Hallmark Entertainment Investments Co., et al.: Court of Chancery Upholds Recapitalization as Entirely Fair
In S. Muoio & Co. LLC v. Hallmark Entertainment Investments Co., et al., the Court of Chancery held that a recapitalization of Crown Media Holdings, Inc. by its controlling stockholder and primary debtholder, Hallmark Cards, Inc. and its affiliates, was entirely fair.