By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Lithero, LLC v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Civil Action No. 19-2320-RGA (D.Del. August 13, 2020), the Court found that Plaintiff failed to plead a plausible trade secret misappropriation claim under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) despite the fact that the Court had

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Colm F. Connolly in Boston Scientific Corp. et al. v. Nevro Corp., Civil Action No. 18-0644-CFC (D.Del. November 25, 2019), the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss with respect to Plaintiffs’ claims for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) in Counts I through VII and IX

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Maryellen Noreika in Agrofresh Inc. v. Hazel Technologies, Inc., Civil Action No. 18-1486 –MN (D.Del. April 25, 2019), the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim of direct infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,017,849 (“the ‘849 Patent”) and 6,313,068 (“the ‘068 Patent”) after finding that Plaintiff’s

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 Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in D&M Holdings Inc. et al. v. Sonos, Inc., Civil Action No. 16-141-RGA (D.Del. April 18, 2017), the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First and Third Counterclaims for Patent Infringement after finding that the asserted claims in the patents that are

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in IP Communication Solutions, LLC v. Viber Media (USA) Inc., Civil Action No. 16-134-GMS (D.Del. April 5, 2017), the Court granted in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss complaint for failure to state a claim. Specifically, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss as to

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceutical Corp., Civil Action No. 14-1268-SLR (D.Del., December 14, 2016), the Court granted plaintiff Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc.’s motion filed pursuant to Rules 59(e) and 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to (1) reopen

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Network Congestion Solutions, LLC v. AT&T Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 14-894-SLR (D.Del., June 4, 2015), the Court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,826,620 (“the ‘620 patent”) after concluding that the adequate notice requirements

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in EMC Corp., et al. v. Zerto, Inc., Civil Action No. 12-956-GMS (D.Del., July 31, 2014), the Court granted the motion of plaintiffs, EMC Corporation and EMC Israel Development Center, Ltd., to dismiss the counterclaims of defendant, Zerto, Inc., asserting invalidity of the five

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson on November 9, 2010, the Court denied the Skype defendants motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Upon analyzing the amended complaint, the Court found that the amended complaint “contains sufficient factual matter, under Igbal, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Id. at 6. The Court noted that, “[w]hile the amended complaint is neither succinct nor representative of artful drafting, the court concludes that plaintiffs have now met the minimum requirements under Rule 8.” Id.

A complete copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.
 


Continue Reading Judge Robinson Denies Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint