summary judgment of non-infringement

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 Reckitt Benckiser LLC v. Aurobindo Pharma Limited et al., Civil Action No. 14-1203-LP (D.Del. October 16, 2017), the Court denied Defendants motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses under 35 U.S.C. § 285. 35 U.S.C. § 285 provides that, in “exceptional” patent cases, a

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Reckitt Benckiser LLC v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., Civil Action No. 14-1203-LPS (D.Del. March 6, 2017), the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,955,821 (“the ‘821 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,838,032 (“the

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in Quest Licensing Corp. v. Bloomberg L.P. et al., Civil Action No. 14-561-GMS (D.Del., January 19, 2017), the Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,194,468 (“the ‘468 patent”).

By way of background, the ‘468 patent discloses an

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Mary Pat Thynge in SunPower Corp. v. PanelClaw, Inc., Civil Action No. 12-1633-MPT (D.Del., April 1, 2016), the Court granted defendant PanelClaw’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,505,788 (“the ‘788 patent”).[1]  In granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Apeldyn Corp. v. Sony Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 11-440-SLR (D.Del., March 31, 2016), the Court denied defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees after finding the case did not warrant exceptional case status under 35 U.S.C. § 285.  By way of background, the

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc., et al. v. Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 07-753-RGA (D.Del., December 5, 2014), the Court, on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, construed the term “electrode” consistent with the

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Intellectual Ventures I, et al. v. Motorola Mobility, LLC, Civil Action No. 11-908-SLR (D.Del., January 2, 2014), the Court granted defendant Motorola’s motions for summary judgment of invalidity in part and motion for summary judgment of non-infringement in part.

A copy of the

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Cradle IP, LLC v. Texas Instruments, Inc., Civil Action No. 11-254-SLR (D.Del., November 20, 2013), the Court granted Defendant Texas Instrument’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,874,049 (“the ‘049 patent”). In doing so, the Court found that Plaintiff

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 9, 2013), the Court granted the motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of defendant Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) as to the asserted claims in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,574,267 C1