The Delaware Court of Chancery Revisits Director Equity Awards
The Delaware Court of Chancery recently held thatstockholder approval of an equity incentive plan thatincluded relatively broad sub-limits on the number ofshares available specifically for awards to non-employeedirectors provided “advance ratification” of subsequentawards to the non-employee directors. The Court’sopinion provides significant guidance to corporationsand practitioners in drafting and seeking stockholderapproval of equity incentive plans, and in…
Delaware May See an Increase in Patent Cases in Light of Supreme Court Decision in Kraft v. Heartland
Today, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, unanimously reversing and remanding the Federal Circuit’s denial of a petition of writ of mandamus from the District of Delaware’s underlying decision denying a motion to transfer venue. In so holding, the Court held “that a domestic…
Legislation to Allow Conversion of Industrial Sites in Delaware Coastal Zone Proposed
Legislation to amend Delaware’s Coastal Zone Act has been introduced that will allow former heavy industry use sites to be converted to an alternative or additional heavy industry use.
Delaware Intellectual Property Law Update
This update provides short updates on judicial decisions, trends, and notable events in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, traditionally one of the three busiest jurisdictions for intellectual property litigation.
Chief Judge Stark Invalidates Patents as Obvious
In Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc., C.A. No. 14-882-LPS (D. Del. Mar. 31, 2017), a post-trial decision, Chief Judge Stark held that the asserted claims of four of the asserted patents (referred to in the decision as the “Acorda” patents) relating to sustained-release drugs used to treat multiple sclerosis were invalid for obviousness, but…
Judge Sleet Denies Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review Without Prejudice
In Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. ASUSTek Computer Inc., C.A. No. 15-1125-GMS (D. Del. Mar. 30, 2017), and related cases, Judge Sleet denied the defendants’ motion to stay the case pending inter partes review without prejudice. Although the Court recognized that petitions for IPR of six of the eleven patents asserted in this case were pending, the…
Judge Sleet Grants in Part and Denies in Part Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
In IP Communication Solutions, LLC v. Viber Media (USA) Inc., C.A. No. 16-134-GMS (D. Del. Apr. 5, 2017), Judge Sleet granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. In its amended complaint, the plaintiff, IP Communications Solutions, LLC, alleged literal and indirect (induced) infringement, and included…
Chief Judge Stark Rules on Effect of Estoppel Following IPR
In Princeton Digital Image Corp. v. Konami Digital Entertainment Inc., C.A. No. 12-1461-LPS-CJB (D. Del. Mar. 30, 2017), Chief Judge Stark overruled objections to Magistrate Judge Burke’s recommendation to deny Princeton Digital Image Corp.’s (“Princeton Digital”) motion to dismiss the defendants’ counterclaim for declaratory judgment of invalidity. Judge Burke had concluded that the defendants, Digital Entertainment…
Senior Judge Robinson Denies Motions for Relief from Judgment
In Cloud Satchel LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., C.A. No. 13-941-SLR and 13-942-SLR (D. Del. Mar. 30, 2017), Senior Judge Robinson denied a motion for relief from judgment filed by Cloud Satchel, LLC (“Cloud Satchel”) in these related cases. The Court had earlier ruled on summary judgment that the subject matter of the patents-in-suit was patent ineligible…
Magistrate Judge Burke Denies Motion to Transfer
In Tessera, Inc. v. Broadcom Corporation, C.A. No. 16-379-LPS-CJB and 16-380-LPS-CJB (D. Del. Mar. 21, 2017), Magistrate Judge Burke denied Broadcom Corporation’s (“Broadcom”) motion to transfer these related cases from the District of Delaware to the Northern District of California. Judge Burke rejected Broadcom’s argument that, because the plaintiffs in these two cases—all incorporated in Delaware—had…