In CR Bard Inc. et al v. AngioDynamics Inc., C.A. No. 1-15-cv-00218 (D. Del. Jan. 12, 2016), Judge Robinson denied the defendant’s motion to transfer to the District of Utah. Even though the defendant was incorporated in Delaware, the defendant argued that Delaware was not “home turf” for either party, and that the District of Utah…

In M2M Solutions LLC v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 12-33-RGA, (D. Del. Jan. 6, 2016), Judge Andrews granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment related to damages, but denied the defendants’ motions for summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity.  On the issue of infringement, Judge Andrews rejected the defendants’ argument that the patent-in-suit…

In a recent opinion, the Delaware Court of Chancery considered, among other things, the impact of an integration clause contained in a subscription agreement for interests in a Delaware limited partnership on a side letter between the limited partnership and an investor, as well as the authority of a general partner to cause the limited partnership…

Delaware is known for its robust litigation in the field of corporate governance, generally arising from transactions among some of the country’s largest and most well-known companies. But Delaware also has become a forum of choice for litigants seeking to protect a variety of intellectual and competitive interests, including trade secrets, restrictive covenants, and confidentiality agreements.…

In this edition of the electronic Richards, Layton & Finger Patent Law Update, we discuss decisions and hearings of note from the District of Delaware from the past few weeks. If you have any questions about any of the decisions listed below or the District of Delaware in general, please let us know.

In Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical Companies Inc., et al., C.A. Nos. 13-1524-SLR, 13-1279-SLR, 14-268-SLR (D. Del. Nov. 24, 2015), Judge Robinson granted two pretrial motions in limine brought by plaintiff to exclude testimony of defendants’ experts and denied a motion in limine to exclude one of plaintiff’s infringement theories. Defendant Amneal…

On December 2, 2015, Chief Judge Stark issued an order on a number of related motions, further narrowing the parties’ issues for trial in W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11-515-LPS. First, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to strike the supplemental expert…

In Collarity, Inc. v. Google Inc., C.A. No. 11-1103-MPT (D. Del. Nov. 25, 2015), Magistrate Judge Thynge granted Google Inc.’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity of the asserted claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, concluding that plaintiff’s asserted claims were directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea and lacked an inventive concept. Despite plaintiff’s argument…

In Tailstream Technologies LLC v. TeraRecon Inc., C.A. No. 15-625-RGA (D. Del. Nov. 30, 2015), Judge Andrews determined that concerns over the sufficiency of plaintiff’s induced infringement claims would be remedied by the proposed “supplemental” complaint. However, neither the original complaint nor the proposed supplemental complaint sufficiently alleged contributory infringement; as such, the “boilerplate” contributory…

In Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corp. v. LG Electronics, Inc., C.A. No. 15-691-LPS-CJB (D. Del. Dec. 3, 2015), Magistrate Judge Burke continued the Court’s trend of declining to grant stays pending inter partes review (“IPR”) until the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) determined whether to initiate IPR proceedings. First, Judge Burke stated that, as…