Delaware Court of Chancery Decisions in Patent Infringement Cases
This article is a partial transcription of the proceedings in the Delaware court of chancery in 2010. The original sources were the transcript of the proceedings before the chancery court’s judges, the original court documents, and Gilead’s own exhibits. These sources were supplemented with information provided as part of this article.
Gilead Sciences, Inc. (Gilead) has argued that the Delaware Court of Chancery (Court) is without jurisdiction to award fees and costs to Gilead for defending itself against patent infringement claims against Gilead’s customers.
This article sets forth the Court’s rulings in Gilead’s patent infringement lawsuits.
On February 13, 2009, the parties filed a joint motion [35] for summary judgment, arguing that the Court lacked jurisdiction over their patent infringement claims because, as a matter of law, Gilead had failed to make a good faith effort to enforce its patents against its customers. Judge Thomas Leiberman concluded that Gilead had not made such a good faith effort to enforce the patents and so denied the motion. On June 13, 2009, Gilead’s counsel wrote a brief [37] that argued that the motions had already been decided. The motion for summary judgment had been denied, and the brief was apparently deemed filed in support thereof.
On July 18, 2009, Gilead appealed Judge Leiberman’s June 2009 ruling to the Court of Chancery. This court did not accept the appeal of the motion for summary judgment, and so the Court did not have jurisdiction over the appeal.
In the interim, Gilead, through its principal, Lawrence A. Dickson, had made some additional filings in the District of Delaware. On September 30, 2009, Gilead filed [45] a document that was apparently intended to substitute for Gilead’s September 19, 2009 brief. The new brief claimed that the original brief had been filed too late.
Delaware Court of Chancery awards attorneys’ fees after the Gilead conduct in litigation.
In the June 28, 2011 decision, the court determined that the plaintiff in the case had been overcharged for its drugs as part of its business practices by failing to include the costs when it billed and was paid. Although it awarded the plaintiff attorneys’ fees, the court declined to make a ruling on the amount of attorneys’ fees. The plaintiff argued that there are two potential ways to reduce the award of attorneys‘ fees to an amount less than 10%. This is because, it argued, the plaintiff had not been undercompensated for it services and thus could not be held entitled to compensation as a matter of common law. The court disagreed with the plaintiff’s argument that it had not been overcompensated for its services, and held that it had been overcompensated for its services when the plaintiff failed to include the costs in its billing and for failure to provide proof that it was paid. The court stated: The services performed by the plaintiff on a regular basis in connection with the treatment of its patients constitute a service to the plaintiff. To award the plaintiff attorneys’ fees in this case would award the plaintiff damages for the services it performed on a regular basis as part of its business and would amount to the overcompensation of such services. The court did not award the plaintiff any amount for the fees it incurred for the period from the time it billed and was paid in early 2006 until October 2009. There are two potential ways that the court could have decreased the award of attorneys’ fees to the plaintiff: It could have limited the award of attorneys’ fees based on common law principles (which would have reduced the award of attorneys’ fees by no more than 10%) It could have reduced the award based on the lack of proof that the plaintiff was paid (which would have reduced the award of attorneys’ fees by no more than 10%). The court has not determined if either of these two reduction are viable. The court notes that the court may have the discretion to award less if a party is “extraordinarily diligent” or acted “without any knowledge of actual damages,” although such a reduction is not recommended under Delaware law.
A class action against a stable road over alleged misrepresentations regarding SPACE TECHNOLOGY
Title: A class action against a stable road over alleged misrepresentations regarding SPACE TECHNOLOGY | Computer Hardware.
ORDERED that plaintiffs are hereby enjoined from commencing any other suits against defendant in the Courts of the State of Delaware; and this Order constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Footnote 1: The parties stipulated to the motion to dismiss on the basis of the Court’s prior decision in this matter dated May 2, 2011 (Doc. 46) and, therefore, defendant’s motion is now moot.
Footnote 2: Plaintiffs are the current owners of the subject property. Plaintiff, Charles A.
Defendants’ motion to withdraw Canaan Report 2020
The defendants moved to withdraw their Report, published on January 5, 2020, reporting on the Canaan Technology Services (a part of the Canaan Technology Group) operations. The reports are now withdrawn by the Defendants, to be published in the Official Gazette of Singapore.
The Canaan Company (“Canaan”), which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Canaan Technology Group, and is involved in the development of information services solutions, recently published a report on the Canaan Technology Group’s operations, the report titled “Canaan Report 2020: Results of Operations”.
The Report was prepared by the Canaan Technology Group, the Canaan Technology Services (the “Canaan”) and the Canaan Research Centre. The Canaan Research Centre is the company’s research and development division.
The Report is considered to be confidential. No information is published in the Report except the names of the persons producing the Report.
A summary of the information received from the Canaan Technology Group, the Canaan Technology Services (the “Canaan”), the Canaan Research Centre, and other affiliated companies.
A summary of the operating results of the Canaan Technology Group and a statement by the Canaan Technology Group concerning its operating results.
A statement of the operating results of the Canaan Technology Group.
The Canaan Technology Group’s revenue.
The Canaan Technology Group’s expenses.
The Canaan Technology Group’s assets.
The Canaan Technology Group’s liabilities.
The Canaan Technology Group’s future prospects.
The Canaan Technology Group’s operating results.
The Canaan Technology Group’s research and development activities.
The Canaan Technology Group’s future prospects.
The Canaan Technology Group’s financial statements.
The Canaan Technology Group’s financial position.
The Canaan Technology Group’s revenue and expenses.
The Canaan Technology Group’s changes in revenues, expenses and net profits that have been attributed to the following causes.
Tips of the Day in Computer Hardware
Related Posts:
Spread the loveThis article is a partial transcription of the proceedings in the Delaware court of chancery in 2010. The original sources were the transcript of the proceedings before the chancery court’s judges, the original court documents, and Gilead’s own exhibits. These sources were supplemented with information provided as part of this article. Gilead Sciences,…