Chief Judge Stark Denies Request for Enhanced Damages
In Indenix Pharmaceutical LLC and Universita Degli Studi di Cagliari v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., C.A. No. 14-846-LPS (D. Del. Sept. 22, 2017), Chief Judge Stark considered a motion for enhanced damages filed by Indenix Pharmaceuticals LLC after a jury found Gilead Sciences, Inc. liable for infringement. The jury awarded Indenix $2.54 billion, and the Court awarded…
Chief Judge Stark Clarifies Requirements for Proper Venue in Hatch-Waxman Litigation and Permits Venue Discovery
In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and Pfizer v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., C.A. No. 17-379-LPS (D. Del. Sept. 11, 2017), Chief Judge Stark considered a motion to dismiss for improper venue. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“MPI”) was sued by Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and Pfizer Co. (collectively, “BMS”) for patent infringement after its ANDA filing for a generic version of…
Chief Judge Stark Denies Defendants’ Motion to Strike
In Cosmo Technologies Limited v. Lupin Ltd., C.A. No. 15-669-LPS (D. Del. Sept. 14, 2017), Chief Judge Stark denied the defendants’ motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs’ expert reports. The defendants argued that they were not on notice of the information provided in the expert reports, including the expert’s visual observations, and that the expert…
Chief Judge Stark Grants Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue Following TC Heartland
In Boston Scientific Corporation and Boston Scientific SciMed, Inc. v. Cook Group Incorporated and Cook Medical LLC, C.A. No. 15-980-LPS-CJB, Chief Judge Stark granted the defendants’ motion to transfer venue, holding that the defendants did not have a regular and established place of business in Delaware. Plaintiffs Boston Scientific Corporation and Boston SciMed, Inc. initiated this…
Chief Judge Stark Decides Four Motions for Summary Judgment on a Variety of Patent Issues
In Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. T-Mobile USA Inc., et al., C.A. No. 13-1632-LPS (D. Del. Aug. 29, 2017), Chief Judge Stark decided four summary judgment motions on various issues. This group of six patent infringement actions involved plaintiffs Intellectual Ventures I and Intellectual Ventures II (collectively, “IV”), and defendants T-Mobile USA, Inc., T-Mobile US, Inc.,…
AE Liquidation: WARN Act Comfort for Debtors Attempting a 363 Sale, or Just the ‘Vladimir Putin Exception’?
In In re AE Liquidation, 2017 WL 3319963 (3d Cir. Aug. 4, 2017) (the “Third Circuit Opinion” or “AE Liquidation”), the Third Circuit held that a WARN Act notice only must be given when mass layoffs are probable, not when merely foreseeable. As a result, a debtor that was attempting to effectuate a going concern sale…
New Delaware Mortgage Laws
The most recent session of the Delaware General Assembly witnessed the passage of a few clean-up bills related to Delaware real estate mortgages. One, Senate Bill 32, was signed by Governor John Carney on August 30, 2017. This legislation requires that a mortgagee or assignee file a notification with the applicable recorder of deeds if the…
The Delaware Rapid Arbitration Act: Considerations for Commercial Real Estate Finance
On April 2, 2015, Delaware Governor Jack Markell signed into law the Delaware Rapid Arbitration Act (“Act”).This Act allows for alternative dispute resolution consistent with arbitration’s origins as a rapid and efficient means of resolving disputes. The Act responds to growing complaints by Delaware’s companies about the incrustation of costs and delays onto non-judicial dispute resolution.…
Magistrate Judge Burke Grants Motion to Transfer Venue
In Contour IP Holding, LLC v. GoPro, Inc., C.A. No. 15-1108-LPS-CJB (D. Del. July 6, 2017), Magistrate Judge Burke granted the defendant’s motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California, the location of its principal place of business. In analyzing the transfer factors, the Court first found that the plaintiff’s choice of forum was…
Senior Judge Robinson Denies Motion for Attorneys’ Fees
In Stephenson v. Game Show Network, LLC, C.A. No. 12-614-SLR (D. Del. July 11, 2017), Judge Robinson denied the defendants’ motion for an exceptional case finding and attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Judgment had been entered against the plaintiff after the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found all claims of the asserted patent invalid,…