In FutureVision.com, LLC v. Cequel Communications LLC et al., C.A. No. 13-855-MPT (D. Del. Mar. 1, 2016), Magistrate Judge Thynge granted summary judgment on the defendants’ license defense, thus barring the plaintiff’s infringement claims. The defendants, cable operators with cable systems throughout the United States, successfully argued that each of the accused services were expressly licensed…

In EMC Corporation, et al. v. Pure Storage, Inc., C.A. No. 13-1985-RGA (D. Del. Feb. 29, 2016), Judge Andrews denied Pure Storage, Inc.’s challenge to EMC Corporation’s (“EMC”) standing to sue for infringement. Originally, the patents in suit were assigned by the co-inventors to Data Domain, Inc. EMC acquired Data Domain, Inc. in 2009 (which later…

Legislation proposing to amend the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the “DGCL”) has been released by the Corporate Council of the Corporation Law Section of the Delaware State Bar Association and, if approved by the Corporation Law Section, is expected to be introduced to the Delaware General Assembly. If the amendments become effective,…

We are pleased to provide Richards Layton clients and friends with this publication, which highlights recent corporate and alternative entity cases and statutory developments in Delaware. This publication continues our long tradition of providing insight into the development of Delaware law. Our attorneys have provided our clients with a concise quarterly update on Delaware law for…

In Bradium Technologies, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., C.A. No. 15-31-RGA (D. Del. Feb. 2, 2016), Judge Andrews granted in part defendant Microsoft Corporation’s (“Microsoft”) motion to dismiss plaintiff Bradium Technologies, LLC’s (“Bradium”) indirect and willful infringement claims. Microsoft argued that the allegations of the complaint were conclusory, and failed to allege sufficient facts of pre-suit…

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.

In DNA Genotek Inc. v. Spectrum DNA, C.A. No. 15-661 (D. Del. Feb. 4, 2016), Judge Robinson denied a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by defendants Spectrum DNA, Spectrum Solutions LLC, and Spectrum Packaging LLC (collectively, “Spectrum”), with leave to renew following jurisdictional discovery. Plaintiff DNA Genotek Inc. (“Genotek”) initiated the patent…

In M2M Solutions LLC v. Motorola Solutions Inc., C.A. No. 12-33-RGA (D. Del. Feb. 2, 2016), Judge Andrews denied in part defendants Telit Communications PLC and Telit Wireless Solutions Inc.’s (“Telit”) motion to redact the transcript of a hearing, permitting redactions only to those sections of the transcript discussing a third-party license agreement, profits, and royalties,…

During the Rule 16(b) scheduling conference in a number of related Hatch-Waxman actions filed by AstraZeneca entities (C.A. Nos. 15-999-RGA, 15-1000, 15-1001, 15-1002, 15-1012, 15-1041, 15-1056, 15-1057, 15-1058) (D. Del Feb. 10, 2016), the Court consolidated the cases for the purpose of invalidity, scheduling separate invalidity (one for all defendants) and infringement (one for each defendant)…

In Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., C.A. No. 14-1430-LPS-CJB (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2016), Chief Judge Stark rejected plaintiff Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC’s (“Elm”) request to allow its settlement counsel to review defendants’ confidential information. Elm argued that defendants had a larger amount of confidential information than it, and as a result would…