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.

On November 24, 2015, Chief Judge Stark addressed six motions in limine and various disputes raised in the pretrial order in W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11-515-LPS (D. Del. Nov. 24, 2015). Among Chief Judge Stark’s various rulings, the Court held that evidence of the European Patent Office’s…

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…

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…

On December 10, 2015, in Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google Inc., C.A. No. 14-1115-LPS (D. Del. Dec. 10, 2015), Chief Judge Stark issued an oral order requiring that plaintiff supplement its claim construction briefing by submitting “proposed constructions (i.e., not merely an unspecified ‘plain and ordinary meaning’) for each of the disputed claim terms for…