By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Colm F. Connolly in HIP, Inc. v. Hormel Foods Corp. et al., Civil Action No. 18-1615-CFC (D.Del. June 24, 2019), the Court granted Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment of Indefiniteness and declaring U.S. Patent Number 9,510,610 (“the ‘610 patent”) invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112. The ‘610

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. v. Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 17-275-LPS (D.Del. June 12, 2019), the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the portion of the Court’s Claim Construction Order that determined that the term “kinetic steps”

By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered by The Honorable Maryellen Noreika in Invensas Corporation v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., Civil Action No. 17-1363-MN (D.Del. November 16, 2018), the Court entered its Markman ruling construing three (3) terms in dispute in U.S. Patent Numbers 6,232,231 (“the ‘231 Patent”) and 6,849,946 (“the ‘946 Patent”).

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Cox Communications Inc., et al. v. Sprint Communications L.P., et al., Civil Action No. 12-487-SLR (D.Del., May 15, 2015), the Court granted plaintiffs’ for partial summary judgment upon concluding that the limitation “processing system” contained in the claims of the patents-in-suit is indefinite

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. v. Power Integrations, Inc., Civil Action No. 12-540-LPS (D.Del., May 4, 2015), the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in part as to no invalidity of U.S. Patent Number 7,525,259 (“the ‘259 patent”) due to lack of enablement, lack

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Technology Innovations, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., Civil Action No. 11-690-SLR (D.Del., March 31, 2014), the Court granted defendant Amazon’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,429,965 (“the ‘965 patent”). The Court also found that plaintiff’s assertion of U.S. Patent

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

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in the consolidated patent infringement action, Aventis Pharma S.A., et al. v. Hospira, Inc., C.A. No 07-721-GMS and Aventis Pharma S.A., et al. v. Apotex, Inc., C.A. No. 08-496-GMS (D.Del., September 27, 2010), the Court concluded, among other things, that (1) claims 2 and 10 of the ‘561 patent are invalid due to indefiniteness; (2) all asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are invalid due to obviousness; and (3) the asserted claims are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. Id. at 2. The Court made its ruling following a seven day bench trial and post-trial submissions by the parties.

A complete copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.
 


Continue Reading