Leonard Philip Stark

The case involved Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited (ITCAN) appealing a Bankruptcy Court order that denied its request for leave to file a late proof of claim in the Flintkote bankruptcy proceedings. ITCAN sought to assert an alter ego contribution and indemnity claim, arguing that the Third Circuit’s 2010 Grossman’s decision—which broadened the definition of a “claim” under the Bankruptcy Code by overruling the prior Frenville accrual test—created a new right that justified an untimely filing despite the 2005 bar date. The Plan Proponents moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The District Court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, concluding that it lacked authority to review the Bankruptcy Court’s order. The court reached this result after reviewing the timing of ITCAN’s filings, its prior awareness of the bankruptcy and bar date, and the equitable standards for excusable neglect without reaching the merits of the claim.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the State of New York suing Intel Corporation for alleged antitrust violations under the federal Sherman Act, New York’s Donnelly Act, and related state law, seeking treble damages on behalf of both the state and numerous non-state public entities (such as local governments and authorities) that purchased computers containing Intel microprocessors. Intel moved to dismiss the claims brought on behalf of the non-state entities, arguing that New York lacked authority to represent them. The court granted the motion and dismissed those claims with prejudice. It held that Section 342-b of New York’s General Business Law permits the Attorney General to sue on behalf of political subdivisions or public authorities only upon their request (or via a class action with an opt-out mechanism), which New York failed to obtain before filing, and that post-filing efforts to secure such requests came too late to avoid prejudice to Intel given the advanced stage of the case.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a patent infringement suit by Ateliers de la Haute-Garonne (AHG) against Broetje Automation over U.S. Patent Nos. 5,011,339 and 5,143,216, which describe a method and apparatus for dispensing rivets or similar objects through tubes with internal grooves or passageways. The court granted Broetje’s motion for partial summary judgment of invalidity, holding that the patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1 for failure to disclose the best mode, and it denied AHG’s cross-motion to strike the best-mode defense as untimely. The core reasoning was that inventor testimony established the inventors had discovered before the December 1988 filing date that an odd number of grooves was superior for reducing jamming, yet the patents contained no disclosure or explanation of this preference; the court found no genuine factual dispute on the timing or concealment of this information. It further concluded that Broetje’s supplementation of its invalidity contentions shortly after the inventors’ depositions satisfied the Pennypack factors and did not warrant striking the defense.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This patent infringement case, originally filed in 2001 by nCube (now ARRIS) against SeaChange, involved U.S. Patent No. 5,805,804 for scalable multimedia data transmission over networks in video-on-demand systems. A 2002 jury found SeaChange willfully infringed, leading to enhanced damages and a 2006 permanent injunction barring sales of the adjudicated ITV system or devices not more than colorably different that clearly infringe. ARRIS later moved for contempt, alleging SeaChange’s post-verdict redesigned ITV system— which altered components like the Connection Manager, Streaming Service, and use of Client ID versus Session ID—still infringes or falls within the injunction’s scope. The court ruled that the matter is amenable to resolution via contempt proceedings rather than a new lawsuit and scheduled a hearing, while reserving judgment on whether colorable differences exist or infringement continues. It based this on the procedural history, the injunction’s language, and intervening Federal Circuit precedent clarifying when modified products may be addressed through contempt.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a patent infringement action brought by Xerox against Google and Yahoo, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,778,979 relating to methods for labeling and categorizing documents. The court opinion addresses claim construction for several disputed terms and order-of-steps requirements in the patent claims, applying standard principles that give claim terms their ordinary meaning to a person of skill in the art while considering the specification and prosecution history as primary guides. It also resolves a discovery dispute, holding that a common interest privilege protects certain communications between Xerox and its agent IPValue because the parties shared allied legal interests in patent enforcement and litigation strategy under a contingency arrangement. The court denied the defendants' request to compel production of the withheld documents, distinguishing the facts from cases involving arm's-length negotiations with potential investors.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a dispute between JFE Steel Corporation and SABIC Innovative Plastics US, LLC (plaintiffs) and ICI Americas, Inc. and Imperial Chemical Industries PLC (defendants) over liability for perchlorate contamination at a Santa Ana, California industrial site formerly used for Teflon recycling. The contamination stemmed from operations by ICIA before and briefly after its 1991 sale of the site and related business to a predecessor of the plaintiffs under an Asset Purchase Agreement and related contracts. Plaintiffs sought recovery of over $6.7 million in cleanup costs under CERCLA as well as contractual indemnification, while defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court denied plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the CERCLA claims, granted their motion on the breach of contract claims, and granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion, primarily turning on interpretations of the agreements' liability allocation and indemnification provisions along with issues of standing and statutes of limitations.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryproperty

This case is a patent infringement action brought by Intellectual Ventures I LLC, a Delaware LLC, against multiple software security companies alleging infringement of four patents through their antivirus and internet security products. The defendants moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer venue to the Northern District of California, citing convenience of parties and witnesses as most relevant activities occurred outside Delaware and no party maintained offices or employees there. The court denied the motion after weighing the factors, emphasizing the plaintiff's choice of forum in Delaware where several defendants are incorporated and the patents had been held by Delaware entities, while noting that witness convenience did not strongly favor either venue.

procedure

This case involves a bankruptcy dispute in which the Production Line Group, purchasers of undelivered Eclipse 500 aircraft under pre-petition agreements, filed an adversary proceeding seeking declaratory relief to establish their ownership interests in the work-in-progress planes, superior to the debtor's estate, and to block or condition their sale under sections 363(b) and (f). After the chapter 11 case converted to chapter 7 and the trustee sold the assets to Eclipse Aerospace (subject to the group's claimed rights), the bankruptcy court denied the group's motion to dismiss the proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that it had core authority to decide whether the aircraft were estate property at the time of sale. The district court denied leave to appeal this interlocutory order, concluding there was no substantial ground for difference of opinion on jurisdiction, an immediate appeal would not advance termination of the litigation, and no exceptional circumstances justified piecemeal review.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

In this patent infringement lawsuit, B. Braun Melsungen AG sued Terumo Medical Corp. alleging that Terumo's Surshield safety IV catheter infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,264,613. After a jury trial, the jury found infringement of three claims but invalidity due to obviousness for all but one dependent claim, which was valid and infringed. The court denied both parties' motions for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict, and granted Braun's request for a permanent injunction against Terumo's product.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns a breach of contract dispute between Tradimpex Egypt Company and Biomune Company over an agency and distribution agreement for Biomune products in Egypt, which Biomune allegedly breached by appointing another agent. Prior related actions had been filed by Tradimpex in Egypt, including administrative and private lawsuits. Biomune moved to dismiss the Delaware action under forum non conveniens, arguing Egypt was an adequate alternative forum, or alternatively to transfer the case to the District of Kansas. The court denied the motion, holding that while Egypt could serve as an adequate forum, the balance of private and public interest factors did not tip decidedly in favor of dismissal or transfer, and the plaintiff's choice of forum should therefore prevail.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a shareholder challenge to a 2009 proxy statement issued by Republic Services, Inc., seeking approval of executive compensation plans tied to a recent merger, with claims that the statement contained material misstatements or omissions about the plans' eligibility for tax deductions under IRC Section 162(m). Plaintiff Seinfeld brought direct claims under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act against the company and directors, plus a derivative claim under Delaware law. The court granted the company's motion to dismiss the federal claims, finding that the plans' performance goals were properly preestablished under Treasury regulations and thus not misleading, and dismissed the derivative claims without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction after the federal claims were eliminated. The individual directors' motion was denied as moot.

business & regulatoryproceduretaxes

This case involves a dispute between Arrowood Indemnity Company (formerly Royal Indemnity) and Hartford Fire Insurance Company over coverage under a fidelity bond issued by Hartford to Student Finance Corporation (SFC) for losses allegedly caused by fraudulent acts of SFC's officers and employees prior to SFC's 2002 bankruptcy. Arrowood sought to recover under the bond after providing notice and proof of loss, but Hartford denied the claim. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment and Arrowood's motion to strike certain deposition testimony and pleadings from prior cases. It granted the motion to strike in part and denied it in part, denied Hartford's motion for summary judgment, and granted in part and denied in part Arrowood's motion for partial summary judgment, primarily on grounds that certain evidence was inadmissible and material facts remained disputed regarding SFC's knowledge of potential losses.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a dispute over whether the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) was required to honor a 1995 state court divorce decree directing that Claire Pascavage be named the sole beneficiary on her ex-husband's Federal Employees Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) policy. The ex-husband had instead designated his second wife and children as beneficiaries before his death, and OPM had received the decree prior to the 1998 statutory amendment and the death. The court interpreted 5 U.S.C. § 8705(e) as requiring OPM to pay benefits according to qualifying court orders received before the employee's death, even if they conflicted with the employee's designation. It granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and denied OPM's motion, concluding that the statute's plain language applied to the decree and that OPM's contrary interpretation was not entitled to deference under administrative law principles.

family lawfederal power

In Francis v. Carroll, a former inmate at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center sued prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that denial of access to dental floss and inadequate treatment for his periodontal disease violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court granted the state defendants' motion for summary judgment. The ruling rested on evidence that the plaintiff received multiple dental treatments, the prohibition on floss stemmed from documented security concerns rather than deliberate indifference, and the supervisory defendants lacked sufficient personal involvement to establish liability.

civil rightscriminal lawhealthcare

In this employment discrimination case, Plaintiff Frederick sued her former employer Avantix Laboratories for demotion and termination allegedly in retaliation for opposing sexual harassment, seeking damages under Title VII and Delaware law. The plaintiff moved to amend her complaint to add TDM Pharmaceutical Research as a defendant, arguing it was a successor entity to Avantix. The court granted the motion, finding sufficient evidence of successor liability based on continuity of operations, notice to TDM, and Avantix's inability to provide relief due to lack of assets. The court also determined there was no undue delay or prejudice that would bar the amendment under Rules 15 and 16.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

The case involves Barbara Bruni's appeal of the Social Security Administration's denial of her application for disability insurance benefits, based on alleged disabilities from Crohn's disease, depression, sleep issues, and back pain beginning in 2006. The court denied Bruni's motion for summary judgment and granted the Commissioner's cross-motion, affirming the ALJ's decision that Bruni was not disabled. The core reasoning was that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's findings that Bruni's Crohn's disease was clinically inactive with minimal symptoms, her mental impairments caused only mild limitations in functional areas, and she retained the capacity for light work; the ALJ also met any duty to develop the record.

federal powerhealthcare

In this case, an inmate at a Delaware correctional facility filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that prison officials and medical providers violated his rights by providing inadequate treatment for a serious skin condition that led to scarring, hospitalization, and surgery. The court had previously dismissed claims against several defendants, including Jane Does and First Correctional Medical Services, as barred by the two-year statute of limitations, but granted the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration after determining that the limitations period was tolled during the mandatory prison grievance process, which took years to resolve. The court then screened the amended complaint under the standards of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A, dismissing certain claims and defendants for failure to state a claim or other deficiencies while allowing the action to proceed against remaining defendants such as Correctional Medical Services. The core reasoning centered on liberal construction of pro se pleadings, the requirement to toll the statute of limitations during exhaustion of administrative remedies, and application of the legal standards for frivolousness and failure to state a claim in prisoner litigation.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedurehealthcare

The case arose from disputes over a typographical error in Rader's bank account number when opening an online stock trading account with ShareBuilder, which led to multiple lawsuits by Rader against the company and a pending counterclaim by ShareBuilder for attorney's fees under the account agreement. After ShareBuilder sent a confidential settlement letter offering to resolve all claims for $125,000, Rader filed this new action alleging the letter was a frivolous demand amounting to extortion or fraud. The court granted ShareBuilder's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Delaware law, as the letter contained no false representations and Rader alleged no reliance or damages, while denying Rader's cross-motion for summary judgment and motion for recusal of the judge and counsel.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In this case, plaintiff Catherine Alred sued her former employer Eli Lilly and her district manager Michael Anderson, alleging that her termination resulted from unlawful age discrimination under the ADEA and related state law, as well as retaliation for taking FMLA leave. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing there was insufficient evidence of discriminatory or retaliatory intent and that legitimate performance issues justified the termination. The district court denied the motion, holding that genuine disputes of material fact existed, including evidence of age-related comments by Anderson, inconsistent performance evaluations tied to Alred's medical restrictions and leave, and questions about whether the company's stated reasons were pretextual. The court also addressed procedural issues such as the interplay between federal and state discrimination claims but concluded that the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, precluded summary judgment.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case is a patent infringement suit brought by Wyeth against Intervet concerning seven patents on vaccines and recombinant DNA methods for protecting pigs from porcine circovirus-related wasting diseases. After Vetmedica was dismissed, the remaining parties asked the court to construe three sets of disputed claim terms, including “PCVB” and related phrases, the terms “vaccine,” “nucleic acid,” and “encoding” appearing in claim 1 of the ’023 patent, and the phrase “amplifying said nucleic acid” in claim 25 of the ’594 patent. The court recited the patents’ shared specification and prosecution history, noted the parties’ proposed constructions, and applied the Phillips framework to determine the ordinary meaning a skilled artisan would give the terms at the time of invention, while considering intrinsic evidence and the effect of a restriction requirement that divided the claims among the seven patents. The opinion addresses whether preambles limit the claims and whether constructions should treat individual terms or the claim as a whole.

propertybusiness & regulatory