By Memorandum Opinion entered by the Honorable Maryellen Noreika in TRUSTID, Inc. v. Next Caller, Inc., Civil Action No. 18-172-MN (D.Del. January 5, 2022), the Court granted Defendant Next Caller’s post-trial renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law of no false advertising under the Lanham Act and to take away the jury’s
false advertising
District of Delaware Concludes that ICON’s Alleged Claims Against Peleton for Statements Concerning “Innovation” Fail to State a Claim under the Lanham Act
By Gregory B. Williams on
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…
District of Delaware Grants Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiff Damages Expert’s Testimony in False Advertising Action under the Lanham Act
By Gregory B. Williams on
By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Colm F. Connolly in CareDx, Inc. v. Natera, Inc., Civil Action No. 19-662-CFC-CJB (D.Del. May 7, 2021), the Court granted Natera’s motion to exclude at trial the opinions of CareDx’s damages expert relating to “corrective advertising damages.” CareDx sought to offer the damages expert’s testimony at trial…
Judge Connolly Denies Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s False Advertising Claims under the Lanham Act and Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act
By Gregory B. Williams on
By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Colm F. Connolly in 10x Genomics, Inc. v. Celsee, Inc., Civil Action No. 19-862-CFC-SRF (D.Del. April 8, 2021), the Court denied Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s false advertising claims under the Lanham Act and the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”) after finding that genuine…
Judge Noreika Denies Defendants’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees in Alleged Patent Infringement Action
By Gregory B. Williams on
By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Maryellen Noreika in Mixing & Mass Transfer Technologies, LLC v. SPX Corporation et al., Civil Action No. 19-529-MN (D.Del. November 4, 2020), the Court denied the SPX Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees after finding that Defendants were not a prevailing party.
By way of background, between 2005…
Judge Andrews Grants Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ Claims of False Advertising
By Gregory B. Williams on
By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Halosil Int’l, Inc. et al. v. Eco-Evolutions, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 18-1375-RGA (D.Del. July 14, 2020), the Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment after finding that no reasonable jury could conclude that Defendants’ advertisements were literally false and Plaintiffs’ breach…
Judge Connolly Adopts the Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Burke to Deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Lanham Act and Unfair Competition Claims
By Gregory B. Williams on
By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Colm F. Connolly in CareDx, Inc. v. Natera, Inc., Civil Action No. 19-662-CFC (D.Del. January 24, 2020), the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke recommending that Judge Connolly deny in part and grant part Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. Defendant…
Judge Sleet Denies SurgiQuest’s JMOL Motion After Finding Evidence Was Sufficient to Support Jury’s Verdict of False Advertising and Unfair Competition
By Gregory B. Williams on
By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in SurgiQuest v. Lexion Medical, LLC., Civil Action No. 14-382-GMS (D.Del. May 16, 2018), the Court denied Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant SurgiQuest’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL Motion”) on the jury’s verdict which found that SurgiQuest had engaged in false and misleading…
Judge Robinson Finds That Neutrogena’s Challenged Advertisements Were Literally False But Denies Schering-Plough’s Motion for Permanent Injunction
By Gregory B. Williams on
By Memorandum Order entered by the Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Schering-Plough Healthcare Products, Inc. v. Neutrogena Corporation, Civil Action No. 09-642-SLR (D.Del., June 8, 2011), the Court denied the motion for permanent injunction of plaintiff Schering-Plough Healthcare Products, Inc. (“Schering-Plough”) seeking to enjoin defendant Neutrogena Corporation (“Neutrogena”) from all future use of the…