Joseph J. Longobardi

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

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.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

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.

civil rightslabor & employment

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.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved an African American code enforcement officer employed by the City of Wilmington who alleged that his 1994 termination for falsifying records and related misconduct violated Title VII by discriminating against him on the basis of race; the plaintiff had previously been terminated in 1990 on similar charges but was reinstated with full seniority following arbitration. After a bench trial, the court found that the City had engaged in unlawful racial discrimination. The court applied the McDonnell Douglas framework to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge, determined that the City's stated reasons were pretextual based on evidence of disparate treatment and monitoring practices, and awarded compensatory damages while noting the unavailability of punitive damages against a municipality.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involved a patent infringement suit by Procter & Gamble against Paragon Trade Brands over two patents (Lawson and Dragoo) relating to disposable absorbent articles such as diapers, along with Paragon's counterclaims for antitrust violations under federal law and the Washington Consumer Protection Act plus infringement of its own Pieniak patent. Following a bench trial, the court previously ruled that Paragon infringed the Lawson and Dragoo patents, that those patents were not invalid, that P&G did not infringe the Pieniak patent, and that the Pieniak patent was invalid, obvious, and unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, resulting in a damages award to P&G. In the present opinion, the court considers Paragon's Rule 59 motion for a new trial or to alter the judgment, which raised three grounds: newly discovered evidence allegedly invalidating the Lawson patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g), new evidence creating issues on the antitrust counterclaim, and evidence omitted from the record; the court recites the standards for such motions, requiring new evidence to be material, undiscoverable earlier through reasonable diligence, and likely to change the outcome, while noting that Rule 59 cannot be used to advance arguments or evidence that could have been presented before judgment.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Samuel Casalvera, serving a life sentence for first-degree murder and related felony convictions since 1977, applied for and received Social Security retirement insurance benefits at age 62 but had them suspended in 1991 after discovery of his incarceration under 42 U.S.C. § 402(x) and 20 C.F.R. § 404.468. He challenged the suspension in federal court, arguing that the statute and regulation violated the Ex Post Facto Clause and the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by applying retroactively and distinguishing between felons and misdemeanants. The court granted the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the suspension is not punishment so it does not implicate the Ex Post Facto Clause, and that the felon-misdemeanant distinction satisfies rational-basis review because it is rationally related to preserving Social Security trust funds and avoiding short-term administrative burdens.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case concerns Procter & Gamble's claims that Paragon Trade Brands infringed three patents (Lawson, Dragoo, and Pieniak) relating to absorbent core structures, leg cuffs, and crotch stretchability in disposable diapers. The court construed the patent claims, compared them to Paragon's accused products, and evaluated literal infringement as well as infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. It then assessed validity, finding the Lawson and Dragoo patents invalid due to anticipation by prior art and obviousness under the Graham factors, while addressing inequitable conduct and anticipation/obviousness issues for the Pieniak patent. Finally, the opinion calculated damages, including lost profits under the Panduit test and a reasonable royalty, and considered willfulness and prejudgment interest.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case concerns patent infringement claims by W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn. against Intercat, Inc., alleging that Intercat contributed to and induced Conoco's direct infringement of five patents covering spinel-containing compositions and processes for reducing sulfur oxide emissions in fluid catalytic cracking units used in oil refining. The asserted claims involve additives that oxidize and capture SOx, with some requiring rare earth metals like cerium or additional metal components. Intercat defended on grounds of non-infringement, obviousness invalidity, failure to distinctly claim the invention, and inequitable conduct before the PTO. The court addressed JMOL motions on infringement and inequitable conduct at the close of the parties' cases and resolved all infringement and validity questions through findings of fact on the additives' composition, prior art references, and the patents' prosecution history.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Thomson S.A. sued Quixote Corp. and others for infringing four patents related to optical disc products, including digital audio compact discs, with the parties agreeing to try representative claims from two patents. The jury found literal infringement but determined the claims were invalid due to anticipation by a prior invention, specifically MCA's 1972 videodisc demonstrations. Thomson moved for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence that the prior art met every claim element and raising procedural challenges under Rule 50. The court denied the motions, holding that the procedural requirements were satisfied and that substantial evidence supported the jury's anticipation finding under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g).

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a patent infringement claim by CFMT, Inc. and CFM Technologies, Inc. against German company SMTD and its U.S. affiliate, alleging that dryers sold in the U.S. infringed U.S. Patent No. 4,911,761. SMTD moved to dismiss the complaint against it for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court granted the motion after determining that Rule 4(k) did not authorize jurisdiction because SMTD was subject to jurisdiction in other states like California, and there was no federal statute allowing nationwide service. Additionally, SMTD had no contacts with Delaware, the forum state, so exercising jurisdiction would violate due process under the Fifth Amendment.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case was a putative class action filed in Delaware state court by plaintiff Sanderson against defendant Comcast, alleging that the company improperly billed customers for cellular phone service during non-communication periods in violation of the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act and related state-law theories of breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Comcast removed the action to federal district court, asserting federal question jurisdiction on the ground that the federal Communications Act completely preempted the state claims. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, applying the well-pleaded complaint rule and finding that the Act did not completely preempt the field so as to federalize the causes of action or support removal.

procedurefederal power

This case arose from Continental Airlines' Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization, where the United States sought to offset approximately $4.5 million that the General Services Administration owed Continental from prior litigation against debts owed by Continental to various federal agencies. The Bankruptcy Court denied the government's motion for setoff and directed disbursement of the funds to Continental, and the District Court affirmed those orders. The court reasoned that confirmation of Continental's Plan of Reorganization under 11 U.S.C. § 1141 bound all creditors and rendered the property free and clear of claims, thereby extinguishing any setoff rights the United States might have had.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

This case arises from the bankruptcy of NDEP Corporation, which sued Handl-It in an adversary proceeding for breach of a supply contract seeking $68,758.67 plus interest and under quantum meruit for goods provided. Handl-It denied liability, asserted counterclaims alleging defective goods, breaches of support and repurchase obligations, negligent misrepresentation, and unpaid commissions, demanded a jury trial, and moved to withdraw the reference of the proceeding from bankruptcy court to district court under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). The court analyzed whether permissive withdrawal for cause was warranted, considering factors such as promoting uniformity in bankruptcy administration, reducing forum shopping, judicial economy, and whether the claims constituted core or non-core proceedings. Because the claims were non-core, Handl-It had filed no proof of claim, and its counterclaims would be compulsory in ordinary civil litigation, the court concluded that Handl-It retained its Seventh Amendment jury trial right and granted withdrawal to the district court.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves an appeal by Dal-Tile International, Inc. from a bankruptcy court order in the chapter 11 proceedings of Color Tile, Inc. and related debtors. The bankruptcy court denied suppliers' requests for physical reclamation of goods delivered before the bankruptcy filing and instead established procedures for granting administrative claims under section 546(c) of the Bankruptcy Code. Dal-Tile argued that the order improperly denied physical reclamation without providing an administrative claim or lien. The district court dismissed the appeal, holding that the bankruptcy court's order was not final and that Dal-Tile had not shown exceptional circumstances warranting an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 158.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned InterDigital Technology Corporation's (ITC) claims that Motorola infringed multiple patents covering digital wireless telephony systems using TDMA technology for efficient frequency spectrum use, along with Motorola's counterclaims seeking declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity. After extensive pretrial proceedings and a 17-day jury trial, the jury unanimously found that Motorola had not infringed any of the 24 asserted claims and that those claims were invalid. ITC moved to alter or amend the judgment, for judgment as a matter of law, or for a new trial, while Motorola sought attorneys' fees, and the opinion addresses these post-trial motions based on the trial record and procedural history.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, Procter & Gamble sued Paragon Trade Brands for infringing its patents on the barrier leg cuff feature of disposable diapers, while Paragon counterclaimed for infringement of its own patent on absorbent cores and alleged antitrust violations by P&G. The antitrust claims centered on settlement agreements between P&G and Kimberly-Clark that cross-licensed numerous patents, which Paragon argued were not based on bona fide disputes and served to maintain market power in the diaper industry. The court granted P&G's motion for summary judgment on the antitrust counterclaims. It reasoned that Paragon failed to show evidence of sham litigation or anticompetitive agreements, that patent accumulation alone is not illegal, and that the conduct was protected under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.

business & regulatory

This case is a patent infringement action in which plaintiff CalMed sued Tecnol for allegedly infringing its reissued '219 patent on a portable cervical collar both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, while Tecnol counterclaimed for declaratory relief on invalidity, unenforceability, false marking under 35 U.S.C. § 292, and noninfringement of a modified collar. The court held that CalMed was precluded as a matter of law from recovering damages for infringement during the period the patent had lapsed due to nonpayment of maintenance fees. This ruling rests on the mandatory statutory intervening rights in 35 U.S.C. § 41(c)(2), with the opinion also addressing equitable intervening rights, claim construction, and validity through findings from a nine-day trial, deposition testimony, and exhibits. The court further noted its jurisdiction under federal statutes and resolved various procedural motions without addressing the full merits of infringement or false marking in the excerpted portion.

business & regulatoryprocedure