Chief Judge Stark Denies Defendant’s Request for Supplemental Infringement Contentions
In a rare order on the sufficiency of contentions, Chief Judge Stark denied the defendant’s motion to compel supplemental infringement contentions. In Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., C.A. No. 16-246-LPS (D. Del. Jan. 31, 2017), defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”) claimed that the plaintiffs’ contentions failed to describe how its ANDA…
Chief Judge Stark Grants in Part Defendants’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees
In W.L. Gore & Associates Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., C.A. No. 11-515-LPS (D. Del. Feb. 8, 2017), Chief Judge Stark granted in part the defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees incurred in responding to the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The plaintiff filed the motion for sanctions after, on the morning of…
Chief Judge Stark Denies Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Based on Discovery Violations
In Robert Bosch LLC v. Alberee Products, Inc., C.A. No. 12-574-LPS (D. Del. Jan. 24, 2017), Chief Judge Stark denied defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation’s (“Costco”) motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2), but granted Costco alternative relief by way of attorneys’ fees, additional discovery and evidentiary relief. In opposition to Costco’s motion, Robert…
Judge Andrews Rules on Motions in Limine
In Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Actavis Inc., C.A. No. 14-1381-RGA (D. Del. Feb. 8, 2017), Judge Andrews granted one, and denied two, pretrial motions in limine brought by the defendants and denied another filed by the plaintiffs. The Court granted the defendants’ motion in limine prohibiting the plaintiffs’ expert from testifying to commercial success…
Chief Judge Stark Grants in Part and Denies in Part Cross-Motions to Strike Portions of Expert Reports
In Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, C.A. Nos. 12-193-LPS, 13-1632-LPS, 13-1633-LPS, 13-1635-LPS, 13-1636-LPS, 13-1637-LPS, 15-799-LPS, 15-800-LPS (D. Del. Jan. 31, 2017), Chief Judge Stark ruled on four motions to strike portions of expert reports and plaintiff Intellectual Ventures I LLC’s (“IV”) request for reconsideration of the Court’s invalidity ruling in light of recent…
Recent Developments in Delaware Corporate Law
This publication contains recent court decisions affecting Delaware corporations and other business entities, as well as the 2016 amendments to Delaware’s corporate and alternative entity law.
Delaware Supreme Court Revisits Director Independence in Considering Derivative Demands
In a recent decision, the Delaware Supreme Court has provided insight into the factors the Delaware courts will consider in assessing director independence in the context of derivative suits. These factors include personal relationships and the board’s previous determinations under the stock exchange rules.…
Applying ‘Corwin’ to Mergers and Irrebutable Presumption of Business Judgment Rule
In Corwin v. KKR Financial Holdings, 125 A.3d 304 (Del. 2015), the Delaware Supreme Court held that the business judgment rule applies to any merger not subject to entire fairness review that has been approved by a fully informed, uncoerced vote of disinterested stockholders. Following that decision, the Delaware Court of Chancery has applied Corwin…
Judge Johnston Grants Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Statute of Limitations Grounds
In Fabian v. BGC Holdings, L.P., C.A. No. N14C-03-037-MMJ-CCLD, Judge Johnston granted defendants BGC Holdings, L.P. (“BGCH”) and BGC Partners, Inc.’s (“BGCP”) motion for summary judgment, and held that plaintiff Larry D. Fabian’s (“Fabian”) claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Fabian, a former BGCP employee, initiated the lawsuit on March 5, 2014 against the…
Judge Davis Holds Insurers Have Valid Controversy Against Insureds but Are Barred from Subrogation Against Defendants as a Matter of Law
In Arch Insurance Co., et al. v. Murdock et al., C.A. No. N16C-01-104-EMD-CCLD, Judge Davis granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that there was a valid controversy between the plaintiffs (excess insurance carriers) and the defendants (the insureds) regarding the funding of a settlement for an underlying lawsuit. Judge…