Judge Robinson Holds Patent Unenforceable for Laches and Inequitable ConductIn Cancer Research Technology, et al. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 07-457-SLR (D. Del. Jan. 26, 2010), Judge Robinson issued an opinion approximately nine months after trial and concluded that the patent was unenforceable due to prosecution laches because of sufficiently egregious conduct, including…
Judge Farnan Grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel TestimonyIn WebXchange Inc. v. FedEx Corp., et al., C.A. No. 08-133-JJF (D. Del. Jan. 20, 2010), Judge Farnan granted plaintiff’s motion to compel testimony and denied defendants’ motion to strike a supplemental response to its interrogatory, for a protective order, and for leave to file a surreply in opposition…
Judge Farnan Grants Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Amend AnswerIn WebXchange Inc. v. Dell Inc., C.A. No. 08-132-JJF (D. Del. Jan. 20, 2010), and WebXchange Inc. v. FedEx Corp., et al., C.A. No. 08-133-JJF (D. Del. Jan. 20, 2010), Judge Farnan granted defendants’ motion for leave to amend their answers. Defendants wished to file a second…
On March 18, 2010, the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (the "HIRE Act") was enacted into law.
On February 26, 2010, the Delaware Court of Chancery sustained a board's decision to adopt and use a poison pill rights plan with a 4.99% flip-in trigger designed to protect the corporation's net operating losses.
Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster's recent decisions in Global Asset Capital, LLC v. Rubicon US REIT, Inc. and NACCO, Inc. v. Applica Incorporated provide good examples of Delaware's approach to analyzing bargained-for deal protection devices.
On February 9, 2010, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an opinion with substantial significance for corporate practitioners.
In two recent decisions—Dubroff v. Wren Holdings, LLC and Berger v. Pubco Corporation—the Delaware Court of Chancery expanded the substantive fiduciary disclosure obligations flowing from statutory notice requirements when a corporation takes action by written consent of stockholders or provides notice of appraisal.
In Paolino v. Mace Security International, Inc., the Court of Chancery granted advancement rights to a former officer and director for his defense of counterclaims asserted by the corporation despite the fact that the initial proceeding had been initiated by the former officer and director.
In Global Asset Capital, LLC v. Rubicon US Reit, the Court of Chancery held that binding letters of intent create enforceable rights that the Court will protect.