This case is the damages phase of a patent infringement action in which W.R. Grace sued Intercat and Conoco for infringing five patents on compositions used to reduce sulfur oxide emissions in fluid catalytic cracking processes. After previously finding the patents valid and willfully infringed, the court awarded Grace lost profits damages consisting of $4,145,356 for lost sales and $3,837,930 for price erosion against Intercat, doubled the combined amount to $15,966,572 because of willfulness, plus attorney fees as an exceptional case, with prejudgment interest at the prime rate; Conoco was held jointly and severally liable for $851,082. The court included certain foreign sales under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f), calculated damages based on Grace's pre-infringement market share and production capacity, and rejected arguments that the statutory provision did not apply to chemical composition patents. The core reasoning rested on stipulated lost-profits methodology, evidence of diverted sales and price suppression, and statutory enhancement for willful infringement.
This case involves a class action lawsuit by former employees against TeleSpectrum Worldwide, Inc. under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, alleging that the company violated the statute by closing its Wilmington, Delaware call center on July 22, 1997, without providing the required 60 days' advance notice of the plant closing. The plaintiffs contend that the shutdown resulted in employment losses for at least 50 full-time employees, while the defendant maintains that transfer offers to other sites, the exclusion of certain employees, and other circumstances meant no WARN Act violation occurred. After discovery, both sides filed cross-motions for summary judgment, but the court denied them upon determining that genuine disputes of material fact existed concerning the number of affected employees, the validity and timing of any transfer offers, and whether employees met the six-month employment threshold. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to bifurcate the case into separate liability and damages phases. The ruling rests on the summary judgment standard requiring resolution of factual issues at trial rather than on the papers.
The case involved plaintiff Jay Schiavello suing his former employer Delmarva Systems Corporation for breach of an employment agreement and violation of the Delaware Wage Payment and Collection Act, claiming failure to provide opportunity for incentive bonus and unpaid compensation. The defendant counterclaimed, alleging the plaintiff breached by not signing a non-compete and made material misrepresentations on his resume about employment history, seeking rescission based on equitable fraud. The court addressed the defendant's motion for summary judgment, which argued that after-acquired evidence of resume fraud barred recovery under Delaware law. The court denied the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact as to whether the plaintiff committed resume fraud that would justify rescission, allowing the defense to be raised at trial.
This case involved plaintiff George Johnson, a former DuPont employee, who sued his employer under Title VII claiming retaliation for filing a prior lawsuit alleging gender and disability discrimination. After completing discovery, the court addressed DuPont's motion for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, holding that Johnson failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation and could not produce evidence showing that DuPont's stated reason for termination—excessive absenteeism and unavailability in violation of its Disability-Related Attendance Policy—was pretextual. The decision rested on the absence of sufficient proof linking the termination to the prior lawsuit rather than legitimate business concerns.
The case involved a probation officer employed by the Delaware Department of Correction who filed a racial discrimination complaint with the state's affirmative action coordinator, after which his supervisors allegedly subjected him to increased scrutiny, criticism, and restrictions that led to his constructive discharge. A jury found in favor of the plaintiff on Title VII and Section 1983 retaliation claims, determining that his discrimination complaint was a determinative factor in the adverse actions, the conditions were intolerable, and the supervisors acted with malice, resulting in awards of $200,000 and $100,000 in back pay. The court addressed the defendants' post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law, focusing on whether sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings regarding retaliation, constructive discharge, and the plaintiff's ability to continue working despite health issues, while also considering arguments about judicial estoppel from disability benefit applications.
This case involves enforcement of a prior injunction under the Clean Water Act against Texaco Refining and Marketing, which had been found liable for hundreds of violations of its NPDES permit authorizing pollutant discharges from its Delaware City Refinery into the Delaware River. Plaintiffs NRDC moved to compel Texaco to develop adequate monitoring to assess the nature and impact of noncomplying discharges, both future and since March 1993, pursuant to the permit's adverse impact provision requiring reasonable steps to minimize harm. The court ordered Texaco to create and implement a program capable of scientifically measuring those impacts and to evaluate past discharges using an expert-recommended protocol, while retaining jurisdiction for compliance. The core reasoning was that the permit's plain language and the Clean Water Act's goals required a qualitative monitoring approach focused on determining environmental effects, rather than mere quantitative compliance tracking.