By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc., Civil Action No. 16-129-LPS-SRF (D.Del. November 9, 2017), the Court overruled the objections of plaintiff and defendant and adopted the recommended constructions of two disputed terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 7,947,295 (“the ‘295 patent”) and 8,921,337

By Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Plastic Omnium Advanced Innovation and Research v. Donghee America, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 16-187-LPS (D.Del. November 6, 2017), the Court rendered its Markman ruling construing twelve (12) disputed terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,814,921 (“the ‘921 patent”), 6,866,812 (“the ‘812 patent”), 7,166,253

By Order entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Blackbird Tech LLC d/b/a Blackbird Technologies v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., Civil Action No. 16-140-RGA (D.Del. June 19, 2017), the Court rendered its Markman ruling construing the remaining term in dispute in U.S. Patent No. 7,129,931 (“the ‘931 patent”) consistent with plaintiff’s proposed

By Order entered by The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in Avid Technology, Inc. v. Harmonic Inc., Civil Action No. 12-627-GMS (D.Del. May 2, 2017), the Court rendered its Markman ruling construing three (3) disputed terms in U.S. Patent No. 5,495,291 (“the ‘291 patent”). The ‘291 patent relates to methods and apparatus for a

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Amgen Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., Civil Action No. 15-839-RGA (D.Del., November 30, 2016), the Court issued its claim constructions for the two phrases in dispute in claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 5,856,298 (“the ‘298 patent”) and found that claim 8

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in Forest Laboratories, LLC, et al. v. Apotex Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 15-018-GMS (D.Del., November 8, 2016) (consolidated), the Court rendered its Markman opinion construing seven (7) disputed terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,417,175 (“the ‘175 patent”) and 8,247,400 (“the ‘400 patent”).

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in United Access Technologies, LLC v. Centurytel Broadband Services, LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 11-339-LPS (D.Del., November 4, 2016) (consolidated), the Court rendered its Markman opinion construing nine (9) disputed terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 5,844,596 (“the ‘596 patent”), 6,243,446 (“the ‘446 patent”)

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Warner Chilcott Company, LLC, Civil Action No. 13-2088-GMS (D.Del., February 25, 2016), the Court rendered its construction of the term “physiologically required amounts,” which remained in dispute in U.S. Patent No. 5,989,581 ( “the ‘581 patent”) during

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in TQ Beta LLC v. Dish Network Corp., Civil Action No. 14-848-LPS-CJB (D.Del., January 28, 2016), the Court rendered its Markman opinion construing six (6) disputed terms in U.S. Patent No. 7,203,456 (“the ‘456 patent”).  The ‘456 patent relates to technology for streaming content

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Yodlee, Inc. v. Plaid Technologies, Inc., Civil Action No. 14-1445-LPS (D.Del., January 15, 2016), the Court rendered its Markman opinion construing twenty (20) disputed terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,199,077 (“the ‘077 patent”), 6,317,783 (“the ‘783 patent”), 6,510,451 (“the ‘451 patent”), 7,263,548 (“the