By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Stragent, LLC v. BMW of North America, LLC et al., Civil Action No. 20-510-LPS (D.Del. March 25, 2021) (consolidated), the Court denied Defendants’ motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaints asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,705,765 (“the ‘765 patent”), 10,002,036 (“the ‘036 patent”), 10,031,790

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Diebold Nixdorf, Inc. et al. v. Hyosung TNS, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 19-1695-LPS (D.Del. March 4, 2021), the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss Defendants’ counterclaim, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and

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 Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in 3Shape A/S v. Align Technology, Inc., Civil Action No. 18-886-LPS (D.Del. February 1, 2021), the Court overruled the objections of Plaintiff 3Shape contending that Judge Hall misapplied the Pennypack factors when she, by Oral Order dated January 9, 2021, denied 3Shape’s requests to

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Colm F. Connolly in ChromaDex, Inc. et al. v. Elysium Health, Inc., Civil Action No. 18-1434-CFC-JLH (D.Del. December 17, 2020), the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant Elysium Health’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss Plaintiff ChromaDex’s patent infringement claims after finding that (1) ChromaDex

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

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Colm F. Connolly in Pharmacyclics LLC et al. v. Cipla Limited, et al., Civil Action No. 18-192-CFC/CJB (D.Del. November 10, 2020) (Consolidated), the Court granted Plaintiffs’ request to preclude Defendant Sandoz from maintaining its theory that U.S. Patent No. 10,106,548 (“the ‘548 patent”) is invalid

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

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Osseo Imaging, LLC v. Planmeca USA Inc., Civil Action No. 17-1386-LPS (D.Del. October 28, 2020), the Court, inter alia, denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no infringement with respect to literal infringement and granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no