This Week's Cases

U.S. District Court of Delaware

Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prod. IP Ltd. v. Praxair Dist., Inc., DEFAX Case No. D67874 (D.Del. Sep. 5, 2017), Sleet, J. (46 pages).

Defendants proved by clear and convincing evidence that some of plaintiffs' patents were invalid because they lacked an inventive concept. With regard to the other patents, plaintiffs failed to prove that defendants infringed, either directly or by inducing infringement.


U.S. Bankruptcy Court of Delaware

In re Aspect Software Parent, Inc., DEFAX Case No. D67871 (Del.Bankr. Sep. 5, 2017), Walrath, U.S.B.J. (21 pages).

Integration clause did not bar fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation claims, where oral representations could be introduced to prove formation of the contract was procured through fraud or misrepresentation, and where the contract's integrated clauses did not expressly contradict the alleged fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations.


Delaware Supreme Court

United Access Tech., LLC v. AT&T Corp., DEFAX Case No. D67861 (Del. Aug. 22, 2017), Stark, J. (12 pages).

Defendants were entitled to summary judgment in this patent infringement matter where the embodiments of the accused systems did not literally meet the limitation as required by the court's claim construction. Motion for summary judgment of non-infringement granted.


Delaware Court of Chancery

Kahn v. Stern, DEFAX Case No. D67869 (Del. Ch. Aug. 28, 2017), Glasscock, V.C. (44 pages).

The information statement provided to stockholders adequately described side deals with corporate officers, and the complaint did not allege sufficient facts to show the directors acted with bad faith with respect to a merger transaction. Motion to dismiss granted.


U.S. District Court of Delaware

Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund, Inc. v. Navient Corp., DEFAX Case No. D67873 (D.Del. Sep. 6, 2017), Sleet, J. (9 pages).

Plaintiffs' allegations of fraudulent conduct in this securities law matter were not sufficiently specific to meet the heightened pleading requirements. Motion to dismiss granted.


Third Circuit

TL of Florida, Inc. v. Terex Corp., DEFAX Case No. D67864 (3rd Cir. Aug. 29, 2017), Rendell, J. (9 pages).

Claim for lost profits from sales properly denied where plaintiff failed to present evidence that customers would have purchased from plaintiff and therefore represented lost sales.


U.S. District Court of Delaware

In re Samson Res. Corp., DEFAX Case No. D67863 (D.Del. Aug. 30, 2017), Andrews, U.S.D.J. (10 pages).

Appeal from bankruptcy court order dismissed where not timely filed under the Bankruptcy Rules, and where appellant failed to motion for extension of the appeal period or assert excusable neglect for the delay in appeal.


U.S. Bankruptcy Court of Delaware

In re: RS Legacy Corp., DEFAX Case No. D67862 (D.Bank. Aug. 31, 2017), Shannon, U.S.B.J. (13 pages).

Motion for leave to file late vacation pay claims denied where the general unsecured claim bar had passed, and claimant had failed to exercise diligence in investigating and asserting her claims to establish "excusable neglect" for the delay.


Delaware Court of Chancery

Eagle Force Holdings, LLC v. Campbell, DEFAX Case No. D67866 (Del. Ch. Sept. 1, 2017), Montgomery-Reeves, V.C. (64 pages).

The parties did not reach an agreement on the essential terms of their transaction documents, so those documents were not enforceable. Because the only basis for personal jurisdiction over the defendant was by consent in the transaction documents, the court dismissed the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.


Delaware Court of Chancery

In re GR BURGR, LLC, DEFAX Case No. D67867 (Del. Ch. Aug. 25, 2017), Slights, V.C. (33 pages).

Judicial dissolution of a limited liability company was appropriate where the operating agreement provided no mechanism to get around a deadlock, and the conduct of one of the members resulted in potential reputational damage to the entity and its other member. Motion for judgment on the pleadings granted.