District Courts

Federal district court decisions

District Courts, Trade Secret, Federal

Signant Health v. Definium Therapeutics — Delaware Court Dismisses LSD-Drug Trade Secret Suit for Lack of Specificity

A Delaware federal judge dismissed Signant Health’s DTSA trade secret claims against Definium Therapeutics, finding that identifying confidential LSD-trial technology only in broad, categorical terms — without pinpointing the specific information allegedly misappropriated — is insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

District Courts, Utility Patent

GlaxoSmithKline v. Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna — Delaware Court Keeps Prosecution Laches Defense Alive in mRNA Vaccine Patent War

Judge Gregory Williams of the District of Delaware denied GlaxoSmithKline’s motions to dismiss prosecution laches defenses asserted by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna, finding the defendants plausibly alleged that GSK unreasonably delayed patent prosecution for over a decade and then broadened mRNA vaccine claims only after its rivals’ COVID vaccine technology became public.

District Courts, Trade Secret, Federal

Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. Zync Inc. — Federal Judge Blocks ITC Trade Secret Proceeding to Enforce Forum Selection Clause

Judge Charles Breyer of the Northern District of California granted BMW a temporary restraining order blocking Zync Inc. from proceeding with an ITC trade secret investigation, finding BMW likely to succeed in enforcing a contractual forum selection clause designating German courts as the exclusive forum for disputes under their infotainment technology NDA.

District Courts, Utility Patent

MEMS Innovations LLC v. TDK Corporation — Court Dismisses Japanese Parent for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction in Piezoelectric Sensor Patent Case

Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the Northern District of California dismissed TDK Corporation of Japan from a piezoelectric MEMS patent infringement suit, holding that conclusory stream-of-commerce allegations were insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction and that plaintiff lacked a legitimate basis for naming the Japanese parent company as a defendant.

Scroll to Top