By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Maryellen Noreika in SIPCO, LLC v. Aruba Networks, LLC et al., Civil Action No. 20-537-MN (D.Del. June 9, 2021), the Court denied Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings on Counts III and IV of Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil

By Memorandum Opinion entered by the Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Peleton Interactive, Inc. v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., Civil Action No. 20-662-RGA (D.Del. May 28, 2021), the Court granted in part and denied in part Peleton’s Partial Motion to Dismiss ICON’s First Amended Counterclaims.  In doing so, among other things, the Court

By Standing Order entered on April 30, 2021, the Honorable Colm F. Connolly, of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, rolled out the new summary judgment motion practice in all patent cases assigned to him.  Essentially, Judge Connolly is now requiring parties to number the motions for summary judgment that they

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Colm F. Connolly in University of Massachusetts et al. v. L’Oréal USA, Inc., Civil Action No. 17-0868-CFC-SRF (D.Del. April 20, 2021), the Court granted Defendant L’Oréal’s motion for summary judgment of indefiniteness of the skin enhancement claim limitation of U.S. Patent Numbers 6,423,327 (“the ‘327 patent”) and

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in In re Chanbond, LLC, Patent Litigation, Civil Action No. 15-842-RGA (D.Del. April 16, 2021) (consolidated), the Court denied Defendants’ motion to reopen discovery to investigate whether Plaintiff Chanbond has standing in the suit given a dispute between Chanbond’s former owner, Chanbond, and Chanbond’s

By Memorandum entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in M2M Solutions LLC et al. v. Sierra Wireless America, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 14-1102-RGA (D.Del. March 31, 2021), the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717 (“the ‘717 Patent”) with respect to the “exclusive set

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Stragent, LLC v. BMW of North America, LLC et al., Civil Action No. 20-510-LPS (D.Del. March 25, 2021) (consolidated), the Court denied Defendants’ motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaints asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,705,765 (“the ‘765 patent”), 10,002,036 (“the ‘036 patent”), 10,031,790

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Diebold Nixdorf, Inc. et al. v. Hyosung TNS, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 19-1695-LPS (D.Del. March 4, 2021), the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss Defendants’ counterclaim, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and

By Memorandum Opinion entered in Conformis, Inc. v. Medacta USA, Inc., Civil Action No. 19-1528-RGA (D.Del. March 4, 2021), The Honorable Richard G. Andrews construed the remaining terms in dispute in the four (4) patents-in-suit, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,377,129 (“the ‘129 patent”), 8,460,304 (“the ‘304 patent”), 9,186,161 (“the ‘161 patent”), and 9,295,482 (“the ‘482 patent”),