motion for reconsideration

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in TQ Delta, LLC v. 2Wire, Inc., Civil Action No. 13-1835-RGA (D.Del. June 24, 2019), the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s April 25, 2019 Order regarding Claim 17 of ‘881 Patent. In its motion for reargument/reconsideration, Plaintiff claimed that the

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 Order entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in M. Denise Tolliver v. Highmark BCBSD, Inc., Civil Action No. 18-797-RGA (D.Del. May 13, 2019), the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s previous order denying remand to state court. In denying the motion, the Court explained that “[t]he purpose of

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in T-JAT Systems 2006 LTD. v. Expedia, Inc. (DE) et al., Civil Action No. 16-581-RGA (D.Del. January 29, 2019), the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s prior opinion and order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss the action for patent infringement against

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Nox Medical EHF v. Natus Neuorology Inc., Civil Action No. 15-709-RGA (D.Del. December 7, 2018), the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration upon acknowledging that it did not appreciate the differences between U.S. Patent No. 9,059,532 (“the ‘532 Patent”) and its European counterpart

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Siemens Industry, Inc. v. Westinghouse Air Brake Tech. Corp. et al., Civil Action No. 16-284-LPS (D.Del. June 20, 2018), the Court denied Plaintiff Siemens Industry, Inc.’s motion asking the Court to reconsider its construction of the terms “vital” and “safety critical” provided in

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 13-1632-LPS (D.Del. August 23, 2017) (consolidated), the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of a prior Order of the Court and granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in Pfizer Inc., et al. v. Sandoz Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 13-1110-GMS (D.Del.,  November 4, 2015), the Court denied Defendants’ Motion to Amend Findings and Judgment on Anticipation of U.S. Patent No. 6,858,650 (“the ‘650 Patent”).  During the four day bench trial, Plaintiffs

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Actavis, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 12-993-LPS (D.Del., June 3, 2014), the Court denied defendant Actavis, Inc.’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Markman Order concerning the construction of the term “levalbuterol” as “substantially optically pure levalbuterol.” Actavis

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Golden Bridge Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 10-428-SLR (D.Del., April 25, 2013), the Court, as a practical matter, denied plaintiff Golden Bridge Technology, Inc.’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Order of April 9, 2013 granting summary judgment