By Memorandum Opinion entered on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in SRI International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case 20-1685 (Fed. Cir. September 28, 2021), the Federal Circuit reinstated the trial jury’s finding of willful infringement, affirmed the district court’s grant of attorneys’ fees and reinstated the

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Express Mobile, Inc. v. Squarespace, Inc., Civil Action No. 20-1163-RGA (D.Del. August 25, 2021), the Court, inter alia, denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims of direct infringement.

By way of background, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendant infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 6,546,397

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in TQ Delta, LLC v. 2Wire, Inc., Civil Action No. 13-1835-RGA (D.Del. July 14, 2021), the Court denied Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert witness relating to the testing of the accused infringing products with regard to the Family 4 Patents. 

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 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 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”),

By Memorandum entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Viatech Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., Civil Action No. 17-570-RGA (D.Del. February 19, 2021), the Court granted Defendant’s motion to strike barring Plaintiff from asserting, and its expert from opining on (1) any theory under the doctrine of equivalents (“DOE”) other than for the

By Memorandum Opinion entered in Allergan USA, Inc. et al. v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., et al., Civil Action No. 19-1727-RGA (D.Del. January 11, 2021), The Honorable Richard G. Andrews construed the five (5) remaining terms in dispute in the six (6) patents-in-suit, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,691,860 (“the ‘860 patent”), 9,115,091 (“the ‘091 patent”), 9,364,489 (“the

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Dr. Laskhmi Arunachalam v. Citigroup Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 14-373-RGA (D.Del. December 4, 2020), the Court denied the motion of plaintiff to reconsider its prior order dismissing all counts of the complaint with prejudice.  The order in question held that plaintiff