Our particular experience and knowledge of the Delaware courts, procedures, and laws make us an invaluable resource for cases that file in Delaware. We support both plaintiff and defendant clients in a broad range of industries, including pharmaceuticals, telecommunications, automotive, biomedical, electronics, internet, and software development.
In 2019, our intellectual property practice defended the highest volume of patent accusations in the US District Courts, ranking #1 nationally in the Docket Navigator’s Year in Review 2019 report and earning Ken Dorsney the title of “Top Attorney for Patent Challengers.” Ken is a leader in IP law and in the firm. As a Six Sigma attorney, he encourages efficiency in his practice to minimize waste and increase accuracy. He has served as clerk in the U.S. District of Delaware and as Editor-in-Chief and Co-Author of multiple books on IP law and litigation. He is particularly well-regarded for his work in generic pharmaceuticals litigation.
Morris James’ Intellectual Property practice builds on the firm’s legal acumen, extensive experience of advocacy in the Delaware courts, and collaborative relationships with national and international law firms. We act as lead and co-counsel in diverse patent, trademark, trade secret, and copyright disputes including:
Our attorneys approach each matter with a focus on achieving each client’s specific goals efficiently and with minimal disruption to their business. Our client commitment and responsiveness is demonstrated by our decades-long relationships with clients and co-counsel. We are a nimble but formidable team, offering superior legal ability, scientific knowledge, and client service to both patent owners and challengers in these highly technical disputes.
Electronic Discovery: eDiscovery is an evolving field that goes beyond technology into multiple legal, security, and privacy issues. Morris James attorneys have taken leadership roles in this area and have developed a system employed firm-wide for a seamless and efficient eDiscovery system. We have participated in the drafting of the Delaware District Court Default Standards, as well as eDiscovery rules and guidelines in the other Delaware Courts.
Efficiencies of Technology: Morris James embraces technology as readily as our clients, and we continually refine our technology in order to improve our service to clients. Working at the forefront of Delaware’s legal community, we were early adopters of a virtually paperless workflow, litigation management tools and technologically-enhanced courtroom presentations. Our IP attorneys and staff continue to provide clients with around-the-clock case support and cutting-edge technological solutions.
ADTRAN, Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC:
Patent infringement – DSL technology
Amgen Inc. v. Hetero USA Inc., et al.
Patent infringement – ANDA
Apple Inc. v. High Tech Computer Corp.
Patent infringement – telecommunications
Asahi Glass Co. Ltd., et al. v. Guardian Industries Corp.
Patent infringement – display technologies
AstraZeneca AB v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., et al.
Patent infringement – ANDA
Bayer Intellectual Property GMBH, et al. v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., et al.
ANDA
Blackbird Tech LLC v. Garmin Ltd., et al.
Patent infringement – activity tracker technology
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., et al. v. Bionpharma, Inc.
Patent infringement – ANDA
Cubist Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Sagent Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Patent infringement – ANDA
Forest Laboratories, LLC, et al. v. Apotex Inc., et al.
Patent infringement – ANDA
Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, et al. v. Sagent Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Patent infringement – ANDA
Genuine Enabling Technology LLC v. Sony Corp., et al.
Patent infringement – user import devices and video game console systems
Impax Laboratories, Inc. v. Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Patent infringement – ANDA
LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp
Patent infringement – refrigerator technology
Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc.
Patent infringement – biomedical technologies
Memory Integrity, LLC v. ASUSTek Computer, Inc., et al.
Patent infringement – computer system technologies
MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc.
Patent infringement – telecommunications
Neev v. Abbott Medical Optics Inc.
Patent infringement – biomedical technologies
Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics Inc. v. MedImmune LLC, et al.
Patent infringement – biomedical technologies
Onyx Therapeutics, Inc. v. Sagent Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Patent infringement – ANDA
Pfizer Inc., et al. v. Micro Labs USA Inc., et al.
Patent infringement – ANDA
Shionogi Pharma Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Patent infringement – ANDA
SRI International v. Symantec Corporation
Patent infringement – internet security
Starhome GmbH v. AT&T Mobility LLC, et al.
Patent infringement – telecommunications
TQ Delta, LLC v. ZyXel Communications, Inc., et al.
Patent infringement – DSL technology
UCB, Inc., et al. v. Apotex, Corp. and Apotex, Inc.
Patent infringement – ANDA
Wyeth LLC, et al. v. Apotex Inc., et al.
Patent infringement – ANDA
"*" indicates required fields
/Passle/6570e4e6056d459875ee21dd/SearchServiceImages/2025-10-28-15-43-53-116-6900e4b9ba229e727680843e.jpg)
/Passle/6570e4e6056d459875ee21dd/SearchServiceImages/2025-04-14-20-14-24-127-67fd6ca0e04e2661bf4c7af5.jpg)
