By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, Civil Action No. 14-1115-LPS (D.Del. September 9, 2020), the Court granted defendant Google LLC’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement with respect to the claims alleging that Google Sheets infringed the asserted claims of U.S. Patent

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Xcoal Energy & Resources v. Bluestone Energy Sales Corp., Civil Action No. 18-819-LPS (D.Del. August 18, 2020), the Court denied Defendants’ renewed emergency request to convert the remote bench trial scheduled to begin on August 25, 2020 to a partially-remote or in-person trial.

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Colm F. Connolly in Genentech, Inc. et al. v. Amgen Inc., Civil Action No. 17-1407-CFC, Consolidated (D.Del. March 9, 2020), the Court issued its claim construction opinion construing the remaining disputed claim term, “following fermentation,” in the patent-in-suit, United States Patent Number 8,574,869. Based on the extrinsic

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Peeble Tide LLC v. Arlo Technologies, Inc., Civil Action No. 19-769-LPS (D.Del. January 31, 2020), the Court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss in three separate patent infringement cases brought by Plaintiff Peeble Tide LLC after finding that the two patents asserted, U.S. Patent

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Cirba Inc. d/b/a Densify) et al. v. VMware, Inc., Civil Action No. 19-742-LPS (D.Del. January 7, 2020), the Court granted Defendant VMware’s motion to exclude certain testimony of Plaintiffs’ trademark expert, Vincent Mayfield. While the Court rejected VMware’s argument that Mr. Mayfield’s opinions

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Citrix Systems, Inc. v. Workspot, Inc., Civil Action No. 18-588-LPS (D.Del. August 16, 2019), the Court denied the motion for preliminary injunction sought by plaintiff, Citrix Systems, Inc. In its complaint, Citrix asserted claims of infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,949,677 (“the ‘677

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 entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in 3 Shape A/S v. Align Technology, Inc., the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for direct, indirect and willful infringement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In short, Defendant argued that Plaintiff’s pre-suit induced infringement and contributory and willful

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in The Gillette Company LLC v. Dollar Shave Club, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 15-1158-LPS-CJB (D.Del. March 21, 2019), the Court, among other things, denied Plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment as to the date of conception for the ‘513 patent. Plaintiff sought summary

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. et al. v. Power Integrations, Inc., C.A. No. 12-540-LPS (D.Del. October 25, 2018), the Court denied Power Integration’s Motion to Preclude Evidence Under Daubert. In short, the Court concluded that (1) the challenged expert, Dr. Hanfield, is sufficiently qualified to