Venetec International, Inc., v. Nexus Medical, LLC, C.A. No. 07-57-MPT, March 28, 2008.
Thynge, M.J. Court denies plaintiff’s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings and grants defendant’s motion in part to amend its answer and counterclaim to expand on its unenforceability defense.
Amgen, Inc., et al. v. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 06-259-MPT, January 31, 2008.
Thynge, M.J. The Court grants plaintiffs’ motion to amend and supplement their counterclaim for inequitable conduct.
Continue Reading...Robinson, J. Plaintiffs' motion to supplement their complaints are denied. Plaintiffs' motion to enjoin Defendants from prosecuting a New Jersey action is denied. Defendants' motion to dismiss one action based on a covenant not to sue is granted and the court dismisses the second Delaware action sua sponte in favor of a first-filed New Jersey action.
Continue Reading...Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc., v. Dexcom, Inc., C.A. No. 06-514-GMS, September 30, 2007.
Sleet, C.J. Defendant’s motion to strike the complaint is denied. Dexcom’s motion to consolidate this proceeding and to stay this proceeding pending reexamination of the seven patents-in-suit is granted.
Angiodynamics v. Diomed Holdings, Inc., No. 06-02 –GMS Sept. 7, 2006.
Sleet, J. Declaratory judgment action was dismissed due to no justiciable controversy. A motion to amend the complaint was also denied as futile.
Inline Connection Corp. v. AOL Time Warner Inc., et al., Nos. 02-272-MPT and 02-477-MPT (consolidated), Aug. 23, 2006.
Thynge, M.J. The court granted defendants’ motion to amend their pleadings to assert prosecution laches defenses and counterclaims, and denied the motion with respect to three additional inequitable conduct allegations.
Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc. v. Dexcom, Inc., No. 05-590 GMS, Aug. 16, 2006.
Sleet, J. Motion to dismiss complaint is granted as to declaratory judgment count, and denied as to infringement count; motion to strike amended complaint is granted; and motion to stay pending reexamination is granted.
Mobius Management Systems, Inc. v. Acartus, Inc., No. 05-346-SLR, June 28, 2006.
Robinson, J. Defendant’s motion to strike, dismiss and stay amended complaint is denied.
Affinion Net Patents, Inc. v. Maritz, Inc., No. 04-360-JJF, June 8, 2006.
Farnan, J. Plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint to assert Lanham claims and to dismiss counterclaims based on testimony that accused product was never implemented was granted.
Continue Reading...Synopsys, Inc. v. Magma Design Automation, No. 05-701-GMS, May 25, 2006.
Sleet, J. The Court denied plaintiff’s motion to dismiss 6 counts of defendant’s amended answer relating to the Sherman Act, Lanham Act and state law claims. It further denied plaintiff’s motion to bifurcate or stay the antitrust claims from the patent claims. Defendant’s motion to amend to add four counterclaims of patent infringement was granted.
Affinion Loyalty Group, Inc. v. Maritz, Inc., C.A. 04-360-JJF, May 22, 2006.
Farnan, J. Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to a corporate acquisition which assigned rights to patents-in-suit to Affinion Patents, leaving Affinion Loyalty without standing. The court substituted Affinion Patents for Affinion Loyalty.
Enter keywords:
For more information concerning any of these cases, contact Mary Matterer at mmatterer@morrisjames.com or 302.888.6960
