Case is transferred to Arizona due to a hardship

L’Athene, Inc. v. Earthspring LLC et al., Civ. No. 08-114-SLR, August 7, 2008

Robinson, J.  Motion to dismiss is denied; motion to transfer is granted where litigation in Delaware would cause undue hardship to defendant given the small size of its company.

Continue Reading...

Pleading of false advertising claim results in dismissal

Claims for conversion and deceptive trade practices under Lanham Act not cognizable

Bavarian Nordic A/S, et al. v. Acambis, Inc, et al., No. 05-614-SLR, May 15, 2007.

Robinson, C.J.  The Court ruled in defendants’ favor and against plaintiffs on cross motions for summary judgment where plaintiffs failed to establish claims for conversion or violation of Lanham Act.

Continue Reading...

Seed, not its resistant trait, is protected by the Lanham Act

Monsanto v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., et al., No. 04-305-SLR, Aug. 4, 2006.

Robinson, J.  Syngenta’s motion to dismiss Monsanto’s counterclaims of reverse passing off and false advertising under the Lanham Act was granted.  Syngenta’s motion to dismiss Monsanto’s counterclaim alleging violations of the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act was denied.  The disputed technology relates to glyphosate-tolerant corn.

 

Continue Reading...

New Lanham Act claims added on eve of expert discovery claims permitted

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...

Case remanded to Chancery Court after dismissal of Lanham Act claims

Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. v. Albermarle Corp., Inc., No. 05-892-JJF, June 8, 2006.

Farnan, J.  Defendant’s motion to dismiss Lanham Act claims was granted.  Supplemental state court claims were remanded to the Court of Chancery.

Continue Reading...

Court declined to dismiss, bifurcate or stay antitrust counts and permitted 4 patent claims to be added

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.

Continue Reading...