Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 11-20 of 114

Chief Judge sleet rules that plaintiffs' '932 patent' is not invalid for obviousness-type double patenting

Fox Rothschild LLP
-
USA
-
August 7 2011

By Memorandum Opinion entered by Chief Judge Gregory M. Sleet, following a five-day bench trial, in Eli Lilly and Company, et al. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 08-335-GMS (D.Del., July 28, 2011), the Court set forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs, Eli Lilly and Company and The Trustees of Princeton University, and against defendants, Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., APP Pharmaceuticals, LLC and Barr Laboratories, Inc

Judge Stark grants defendants' motion to transfer venue to Central District of California

Fox Rothschild LLP
-
USA
-
July 23 2011

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Human Genome Sciences, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11-082-LPS (D.Del., July 18, 2011), the Court granted the motion of defendants, Genetech, Inc. and City of Hope, to transfer venue of three actions filed against them in the District of Delaware by plaintiff, Human Genome Sciences, Inc. (“HGS”), to the Central District of California

Don't count on getting attorneys' fees in patent cases

Fox Rothschild LLP
-
USA
-
April 14 2011

It isn't easy to recover attorneys' fees from one's adversary in patent cases, and it does not happen often

Judge stark denies broetje's motion to dismiss alleging lack of subject matter jurisdiction over patent-in-suit

Fox Rothschild LLP
-
USA
-
October 15 2011

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Ateliers De La Haute-Garonne, et al. v. Broetje Automation-USA Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 09-598-LPS (D.Del., October 13, 2011), the Court denied the motion of defendants Broetje Automation-USA, Inc. and Bröetje-Automation GMBH to dismiss plaintiffs’ first claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

Definitely no presumption of irreparable harm for patent infringement

Fox Rothschild LLP
-
USA
-
October 14 2011

The Federal Circuit this week expressly confirmed that there is no presumption of irreparable harm for patent infringement, and injunctions should not be granted automatically in patent cases

Magistrate Judge Burke recommends that defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss be granted in part

Fox Rothschild LLP
-
USA
-
December 4 2011

By Report and Recommendation entered by The Honorable Christopher J. Burke in Eastman Chemical Co. v. Alphapet Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 09-971-LPS-CJB (D.Del., November 10, 2011), the Court granted in part defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the breach of contract and trade secret misappropriation claims asserted by Plaintiff

No presumption of irreparable harm in false advertising cases either

Fox Rothschild LLP
-
USA
-
December 5 2011

Irreparable injury cannot be presumed in Lanham Act false advertising cases

Chief judge sleet concludes that Mylan's proposed ANDA product does not infringe the patent-in-suit asserted by Astrazeneca and others

Fox Rothschild LLP
-
USA
-
July 9 2011

By Memorandum Opinion entered by the Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in AstraZeneca LP, et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Civil Action No. 08-53-GMS (D.Del., June 23, 2011) after a three day bench trial, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Mylan’s proposed generic budesonide product would infringe the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,643,602 (the “‘602 patent” or the “patent-in-suit”

Sweeping patent reform legislation passed by Senate

Fox Rothschild LLP
-
USA
-
September 30 2011

Some franchise systems hold or are developing patents which they license for use by their franchisees

Judge Robinson grants Palm's and Intermec's motions for summary judgment on invalidity and infringement in part

Fox Rothschild LLP
-
USA
-
September 30 2011

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Intermec Technologies Corp. v. Palm Inc., Civil Action No. 07-272-SLR (D.Del., September 15, 2011), the Court granted Defendant Palm Inc.’s (“Palm”) motion for summary judgment relating to its infringement counterclaims in part by finding no invalidity as to its U.S. Patent Nos. 6,665,803 (“the ‘803 patent”) and 7,096,049 (“the ‘049 patent”

< back next >