Gregory Moneta Sleet

This case involved a patent infringement dispute between LG Electronics and Whirlpool concerning refrigerator technologies covered by three patents: LG's '121 patent on an ice and water dispensing mechanism, Whirlpool's '130 patent on relocating an ice storage bin to the freezer door, and Whirlpool's '601 patent on liner plaques to reduce wall bowing. After a jury trial, the jury found LG's '121 patent valid and not infringed, that LG infringed some claims of the '130 patent (but not willfully) and infringed but anticipated claims of the '601 patent, and awarded damages to Whirlpool. In its post-trial memorandum, the court denied most motions for judgment as a matter of law and new trials but granted limited relief, including JMOL on anticipation of one '601 claim, non-infringement by certain LG models under the '130 patent, and new trials on damages and other issues where parties failed to preserve objections under Rule 50(a). The court's decisions rested on review of whether the jury's findings were supported by substantial evidence and whether legal conclusions followed from those findings under Federal Circuit standards.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves shareholder Herbert Resnik filing direct and derivative claims against Archer-Daniels-Midland Company (ADM) and its individual directors and officers, alleging violations of securities laws under §14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, SEC regulations, the Internal Revenue Code, and state-law claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste, and unjust enrichment related to disclosures in a 2009 proxy statement for an executive incentive compensation plan. A related action was filed by shareholder Vladimir Gusinsky. The court consolidated the actions, designated Resnik's complaint as the operative pleading, granted ADM's motion to dismiss one count of Resnik's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) while denying the remainder of the motions to dismiss, denied Gusinsky's motion to appoint lead counsel, and denied the motions to dismiss Gusinsky's complaint as moot.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this patent infringement case, Aventis Pharma S.A. and Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC sued Hospira, Inc. and Apotex, Inc., alleging that the defendants' proposed generic docetaxel pharmaceutical products infringed two patents covering taxane derivative formulations used in chemotherapy. Following a seven-day bench trial, the court found that claims 2 and 10 of the '561 patent were invalid for indefiniteness, that all asserted claims of both patents were invalid for obviousness, and that the patents were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. The court further concluded that the defendants' products would infringe certain claims if valid, but that the patents were not invalid for double patenting, based on analysis of the patent specifications, prior art, formulation stability, and evidence from the trial record.

business & regulatory

Catherine Dougherty appealed the denial of her Social Security disability insurance benefits claim, which alleged disability starting in 2005 due to chronic leg infections, injuries from a prior car accident, and related back problems. The district court granted in part and denied in part her summary judgment motion, denied the Commissioner's motion without prejudice, vacated the ALJ's decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court found that the ALJ failed to give appropriate weight to the opinion of Dougherty's treating pain management specialist regarding her physical limitations, as the ALJ's reasons for discounting it were not supported by the record. The court also noted deficiencies in the ALJ's assessment of Dougherty's residual functional capacity and the hypothetical posed to the vocational expert.

federal powerhealthcareprocedure

In this consolidated patent infringement action, Santarus, Inc. and the University of Missouri alleged that Par Pharmaceutical's proposed generic omeprazole-bicarbonate pharmaceutical product infringed several patents relating to substituted benzimidazole dosage forms. Following a five-day bench trial, the court ruled that Par's products infringed the asserted claims but that the patents-in-suit were invalid as obvious in light of prior art and that certain claims lacked adequate written description or were not entitled to earlier priority dates. The court further held that the patents were not unenforceable for inequitable conduct and declined to award attorneys' fees. These conclusions rested on findings regarding the prosecution history, the scope of the priority applications, and the obviousness of combining omeprazole with a bicarbonate salt.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Lewis v. Phelps, a Delaware state prisoner convicted in 2003 of carjacking, felony theft, and resisting arrest filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, asserting claims including ineffective assistance of counsel, due process violations, and prosecutorial misconduct after pursuing multiple unsuccessful post-conviction motions in state court. The court dismissed the petition as time-barred by the one-year limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), which started running on December 28, 2005, when the conviction became final following direct review by the Delaware Supreme Court. The core reasoning was that the petition, filed in July 2008, exceeded the deadline even after accounting for statutory tolling from properly filed state collateral review applications and without any basis for equitable tolling or other exceptions under AEDPA.

criminal lawprocedure

This consolidated patent infringement case involved Allergan suing several generic drug manufacturers, including Apotex and Exela, over proposed generic versions of brimonidine tartrate ophthalmic solutions used to treat glaucoma. After an eight-day bench trial, the court found that the defendants' products infringed the asserted claims of the five patents-in-suit (the '210, '834, '337, '873, and '078 patents), that the patents were valid and enforceable, and that no attorneys' fees or costs should be awarded. The decision rested on the court's evaluation of the evidence presented at trial regarding infringement, validity under standards such as obviousness and written description, and enforceability, while incorporating prior claim constructions and noting certain stipulations by the defendants. The court granted Allergan's Rule 52(c) motion and denied Exela's.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

In this case, inmate Kevin Brathwaite sued Correctional Medical Services, Scott Altman, and Dr. Cathy Kionke under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by providing inadequate dental care for ongoing pain and infection in his front teeth. The defendants moved for partial summary judgment. The court granted the motion, finding that Brathwaite had received multiple dental examinations, antibiotics, pain relievers, and fillings, along with repeated offers of tooth extraction, which he refused in favor of a root canal. The court reasoned that prisoners are entitled to reasonable treatment but have no constitutional right to demand a specific procedure, that the care provided was constitutionally adequate, and that Brathwaite failed to identify any policy or custom by CMS that caused a violation.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case involves claims by plaintiffs that the registration statement and prospectus for Adams Golf's 1998 IPO contained materially false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, specifically by failing to disclose risks from gray market sales of its golf clubs at discount stores and questionable sales practices like double shipping that could impact future revenues. The Adams Golf defendants and Underwriter defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of duty to disclose, immateriality, negative causation for stock price declines, and adequate due diligence. The court denied both motions, finding genuine issues of material fact on key issues including materiality, loss causation, the duty to disclose, the existence and knowledge of questionable practices, and the reasonableness of the due diligence investigation that must be resolved by a factfinder rather than as a matter of law.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved environmental groups suing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and related federal defendants over management practices at the Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge in Delaware. Plaintiffs alleged that the agency allowed cooperative farming agreements, including the planting of genetically modified crops, without conducting required compatibility determinations under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act or environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act, in violation of those statutes and the Administrative Procedure Act. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, holding that the defendants had not complied with these procedural mandates before authorizing the farming uses. It issued injunctive relief barring further cooperative farming until a written compatibility determination is completed and prohibiting cultivation with genetically modified crops until an environmental assessment or impact statement is prepared.

environment

In this patent infringement case, Telcordia sued Cisco alleging that Cisco infringed three patents related to telecommunications networks for multiplexing traffic, timing recovery in ATM networks, and self-healing ring networks. After a jury trial, the jury found that Cisco willfully infringed two of the patents, upheld the validity of all three, and awarded damages; the court entered judgment on the verdict. Cisco then filed renewed motions for judgment as a matter of law challenging infringement and validity, while Telcordia sought enhanced damages, attorney fees, a permanent injunction, and other relief. The court denied all of Cisco's JMOL motions, finding substantial evidence supported the jury's findings on infringement, willfulness, and validity. It also denied Telcordia's requests for an injunction, enhanced damages, and fees, but granted prejudgment interest and an accounting, reasoning that monetary damages were adequate and the jury award was supported by the evidence presented at trial.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Ferguson v. Garden Ridge Corp., appellant Daniel Ferguson sought relief from the automatic stay in the Garden Ridge debtors' Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases to set off a $250,000 promissory note he owed to Garden Ridge, L.P. against severance and relocation claims he asserted against Garden Ridge Management, Inc. The bankruptcy court denied the motion, holding that the obligations lacked mutuality because they ran between separate entities, that triangular setoff was impermissible absent a formal agreement, and that substantive consolidation did not create the required mutuality. On appeal, the district court affirmed, concluding that the bankruptcy court correctly applied setoff principles, that any procedural errors were harmless, and that equitable doctrines and judicial estoppel did not support Ferguson's position.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved claims for wrongful death, survival, and personal injury brought by family members of two civilian police officers killed and one injured in a 2004 vehicle-borne IED attack in Kabul, Afghanistan, while working under a U.S. Department of State contract to train local police. The plaintiffs originally filed in Delaware state court against the prime contractors (DynCorp and CSC), who removed the case to federal court under the federal officer removal statute (28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1)) and moved to dismiss. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand, finding that the defendants failed to establish a basis for federal jurisdiction because they were not acting under a federal officer in the required manner and the Defense Base Act did not completely preempt the state-law claims to allow removal. It therefore denied the motion to dismiss as moot and returned the case to state court.

procedurefederal powerlabor & employmenttorts & liability

This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court order dismissing multiple state-law claims, including fraud, professional malpractice, unjust enrichment, deepening insolvency, and breach of fiduciary duty, brought by a liquidating trustee on behalf of a bankrupt company's creditors against its former controlling shareholders and directors. The trustee alleged that the defendants improperly seized control of the debtor, caused it to sell valuable assets at an undervalue, and violated loan covenants to benefit themselves. The bankruptcy court dismissed the claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, relying on Third Circuit precedent requiring a close nexus between post-confirmation claims and the bankruptcy plan or estate. The district court affirmed, holding that merely preserving claims in a plan or disclosure statement does not create jurisdiction and that the claims here lacked the necessary connection to the bankruptcy proceeding.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

In this case, the Christina School District filed a third-party unjust enrichment claim against Scientific Learning Corporation (SLC) after terminating a Master Lease Agreement used to fund SLC software and services; the claim sought recovery for training and consulting services that had been paid for but allegedly not provided due to the termination. The original lawsuit was brought by assignees of the lease against the District for breach of contract and related claims. The court granted SLC's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. It reasoned that the District had conceded the existence of a valid, integrated contract with SLC in the form of signed Order Forms and accompanying Terms and Conditions that expressly covered the licenses and services at issue and constituted the complete agreement between the parties. Under Delaware law, the presence of such an express contract governing the subject matter precludes recovery on an unjust enrichment theory even when changed circumstances render performance less desirable.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Mitchell v. Wachovia Corp., an African-American male financial advisor sued his employer Wachovia Securities and several colleagues, alleging race and gender discrimination under Title VII and the Delaware Discrimination Act, violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985, and 1986, and related Delaware fraud and conspiracy claims arising from his removal from a branch office and handling of workplace conflicts. The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. The court reasoned that Mitchell failed to raise triable issues showing intentional discrimination or pretext for the employment actions taken, and that his conspiracy and derivative claims could not stand without underlying statutory violations.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In United States v. Jackson, the defendant was indicted for possession of a firearm by a prohibited person after a traffic stop in which officers discovered a handgun in his vehicle. Jackson moved to suppress the firearm and his statements, arguing the search was unlawful. Following an evidentiary hearing with conflicting testimony from the officers and defendant, the court found that the government failed to prove voluntary consent to the search and that the evidence indicated an inventory search instead. The court therefore held that the search violated the Fourth Amendment and granted the motion to suppress.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

Helen D. Martin, an African American female former employee of the defendant law firm, filed suit alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VII, and the Delaware State Discrimination Act, claiming she faced racial and gender discrimination that created a hostile work environment and led to her constructive discharge. Her complaints included unaddressed personnel issues such as coworker hygiene problems, lack of discipline, denied equipment requests and raises, and incidents of racial name-calling among staff that management allegedly failed to resolve adequately. The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims. The court reasoned that Martin did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination or hostile work environment because her assertions relied on speculation that management would have acted differently if she were white, rather than on evidence meeting the legal standards, and some complaints were addressed by the employer.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved plaintiffs Gloria and Emilio Nieves suing Acme Markets under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Delaware anti-discrimination law, and common law for alleged national origin discrimination, harassment, and a hostile work environment experienced by Mrs. Nieves, a Hispanic woman of Colombian origin working in a deli department, along with derivative claims by her husband. The court denied the employer's motion for summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim but granted it on the remaining claims, including intentional infliction of emotional distress and the husband's claims. The decision on the hostile work environment claim rested on evidence from Mrs. Nieves and a coworker describing slurs, jokes, and dismissive treatment tied to her accent, language, and origin that created a triable issue of fact, while other claims were rejected for lack of evidence or legal preemption.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involves Shawn Hosea Vanlier's federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his Delaware convictions for attempted first-degree rape, first-degree kidnapping, second-degree reckless endangering, and third-degree assault arising from a 1998 sexual assault on a stranger. The victim identified Vanlier from a photo array, leading to his arrest, though later mitochondrial DNA testing excluded him as the source of hair evidence and the parties stipulated there was no forensic evidence tying him to the crime; Vanlier's defense centered on mistaken identification. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the majority of claims were procedurally defaulted without a showing of cause and prejudice, that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions based on the victim's testimony, and that remaining claims failed to establish constitutional violations such as ineffective assistance or double jeopardy issues.

criminal lawprocedure