Dear Colleague, Managing IP and Delaware IP Law Blog invite you to the US Patent Reform Forum on March 27, 2012 at the Willard InterContinental in Washington D.C. Free for IP counsel, academics and research institutes The forum brings together top officials, leading counsel at U.S. corporations and their private practice advisers to discuss theContinue reading “Managing IP’s US Patent Reform Forum, Washington, D.C. March 27, 2012”
Category Archives: General
New opinion from Delaware Court of Chancery on Trade Secret Misappropriation
In a recent case before Vice Chancellor Parsons of the Delaware Court of Chancery, Plaintiff Great American brought claims against Defendant Cherrydale for, among other things, misappropriation of trade secrets. Great American Opportunities, Inc. v. Cherrydale Fundraising, LLC et al., C.A. No. 3718-VCP (Del. Ch. Jan. 29, 2010). The action stemmed from events that occurredContinue reading “New opinion from Delaware Court of Chancery on Trade Secret Misappropriation”
New Rules for Computing Time and Proposed Revised Local Rules for Comment
As most everyone is aware by now, new amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure became effective as of December 1, 2009 that change the way that deadlines are computed under the rules. The District Court of Delaware recently posted on its website, the following information regarding the computation time: TIME (COMPUTATION OF TIME):Continue reading “New Rules for Computing Time and Proposed Revised Local Rules for Comment”
Delaware Court of Chancery: Defining the Role of “Delaware Counsel”
In a decision issued yesterday, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster offered an insightful view on the role of “Delaware counsel”: “It is of course true that Delaware counsel and forwarding counsel necessarily allocate responsibility for work, and that in some cases, the allocation may be heavily weighted towards forwarding counsel. It is also true thatContinue reading “Delaware Court of Chancery: Defining the Role of “Delaware Counsel””
New District of Delaware Intellectual Property Filings
2/19: Flashpoint Technology, Inc. v. Aiptek, Inc., Argus Camera Co., LLC, Bushnell Inc., DXG Technology USA, Inc., DXG Technology Corp., Leica Camera AG, Leica Camera, Inc., Minox GMBH, Minox USA, Inc., Oregon Scientific, Inc., Ritz Interative, Inc., Ritz Camera CEnters, Inc., Sakar International, Inc., D/B/A Digital Concepts, Tabata U.S.A., Inc., Target Corp., VistaQuest Corp., VuPointContinue reading “New District of Delaware Intellectual Property Filings”
Peter Zura of 271 Patent Blog
Just a short note that our thoughts and prayers are with our fellow blogger at the 271 Patent Blog, Peter Zura, and his family during this time of recovery.
Reexam Statistics
Our fellow blogger at 271patent.blogspot recently had an interesting post discussing the statistics on reexamination in 2007 as set forth in a USPTO Report. The latest statistics on Ex Parte Reexamination (through December 2007) have been released by the PTO. As expected, the number of reexamination requests continue to climb: 2002 – 272 filings 2003Continue reading “Reexam Statistics”
CLE Entitled “Federal Practice in the District of Delaware: Openings, Closings and Case Themes” to be held March 18th
The Delaware Chapter of the Federal Bar Association, in conjunction with the District Court of Delaware, will be presenting the first in a series of trial advocacy CLE programs entitled “Federal Practice in the District of Delaware: Openings, Closings and Case Themes” on March 18, 2008 at 1:00 p.m. Registration is currently limited to membersContinue reading “CLE Entitled “Federal Practice in the District of Delaware: Openings, Closings and Case Themes” to be held March 18th”
A Quiet February…
A quick perusal of our blog for the month of February might cause one to think that the three of us left for a month long ski trip in the Rockies. Rest assured, we were here in Delaware following the few district court opinions that issued. We are speculating that small number of opinions mayContinue reading “A Quiet February…”
Court Finds Patent Claim Invalid For Lack Of An Adequate Written Description
Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v. Rexam Beverage Can Co., C.A. No. 05-608-MPT (D. Del. Jan. 22, 2007) Rexam moved for partial summary judgment of invalidity and noninfringement. The Court granted both motions in part. As to noninfringement, the Court held that Rexam did not infringe the claim at issue under the doctrine of equivalants, grantingContinue reading “Court Finds Patent Claim Invalid For Lack Of An Adequate Written Description”
Delaware IP Law Blog 