Patterson Belknap
Microsoft has discontinued support for Internet Explorer. To access the Patterson Belknap website, please install a modern browser like Microsoft Edge or Google Chrome.
We use cookies to enhance your experience of our website and provide us with information on how you use our website. For more information about the way our site uses cookies, please read our Privacy Policy. Click "Accept Cookies" to enable cookies and third-party content or “Decline” to decline the use of cookies.
Accept CookiesDecline
mobile logo
High Contrast Mode
  • Search
  • People
  • Practices
  • Values
    Inclusion and Engagement
    Pro Bono
    Core Values
  • Firm
    About Our Firm
    Careers : Attorneys
    Careers: Business Services
    Contact Us
    Blogs & Podcasts
    Firm News
    Publications
    Events
Skip Nav
Patterson Belknap Logo
Inclusion and Engagement
Pro Bono
Core Values
About Our Firm
Careers
AttorneysBusiness Services
Contact Us
News & Resources
Blogs & PodcastsFirm NewsPublicationsEvents

Find a Person


Search
  • A
    B
    C
    D
    E
    F
    G
    H
    I
    J
    K
    L
    M
  • N
    O
    P
    Q
    R
    S
    T
    U
    V
    W
    X
    Y
    Z
  • View All
  • A
    B
    C
    D
    E
    F
    G
    H
    I
    J
    K
    L
    M
    N
    O
    P
    Q
    R
    S
    T
    U
    V
    W
    X
    Y
    Z
    View All

Find a Practice

Search
  • Corporate & Transactions
  • Exempt Organizations & Private Clients
  • Litigation, Disputes & Investigations
  • All Practices
printable-logo

NY Patent Decisions Blog

Categories / Search
Categories / Search

Search Blog

Search
Filter By Categories:
  • Eastern District of New York (E.D.N.Y.)
  • Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)
Posts
Subscribe
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Joint Inventorship Claim for Online Dating Patent Ends in Heartbreak, Attorneys’ Fees Award

After a series of procedurally complex twist and turns that resulted in an agreement by plaintiff to not oppose defendants’ motion for summary judgment, U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer (S.D.N.Y.) granted defendants Lori Cheek and Cheek’d Inc.’s motion for attorney...
May 27, 2020

What is Produced in the Southern District, Stays in the Southern District: Judge Rakoff Denies Plaintiff’s Requests to Use Documents In Chinese Proceeding

Last year we reported on the patent dispute between Plaintiff SIMO Holdings, Inc. (“SIMO”) and Defendants Hong Kong uCloudlink Network Technology Limited and uCloudlink (America), Ltd. (collectively, “uCloudlink”).  (See posts from June 2019 and October 2019.)  With the trial concluded—and...
May 12, 2020

Judge Cote Reconsiders Dismissal and Reinstates Willfulness Allegations

On April 30, 2020, Judge Cote granted reconsideration of her March 4 dismissal of Plaintiffs Signify North America Corp. and Signify Holding B.V.’s (“Signify”) allegations of willful infringement against Defendant Axis Lighting Inc. (“Axis”). In its amended complaint, Signify asserted seven...
May 4, 2020

Judge Moses Recommends Awarding to Plaintiff Defendant's Profits Under 35 U.S.C. § 289 for Infringement of a Design Patent

On April 21, 2020, Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses (S.D.N.Y.) issued a recommendation that Plaintiff Evriholder Products LLC (“Evriholder”) be awarded: (1) damages under 35 U.S.C. § 289 for infringement of U.S. Patent No. D524,612 ("the '612 patent") by Defendant Simply...
April 27, 2020

Judge Matsumoto “Serves Up” Transfer Motions for Improper Venue in EDNY

On April 7, 2020, U.S. District Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto (EDNY) granted the motions to transfer for improper venue of two sets of defendants comprising the architects (“Rossetti”) and the engineers (“Morgan”) that designed and built the allegedly patent infringing...
April 16, 2020

Mobile Marketing Vehicle Infringement Suit Runs Out of Gas

On April 6, 2020, U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken (S.D.N.Y.) granted defendant Aardvark Event Logistics, Inc’s motions to exclude plaintiff Bobcar Media, LLC’s expert testimony and for summary judgment, dismissing all of Bobcar’s remaining claims. Bobcar owns technology and...
April 13, 2020

Judge Oetken Rules Peloton Can Ride Away from Invalid Patent

On April 2, 2020, Judge Oetken granted summary judgment of anticipation and resolved a variety of contract and tort claims in a long-running feud between VR Optics (“VRO”), Peloton Interactive, Inc. (“Peloton”), and Peloton’s design consultant Villency Design Group LLC (“VDG”). Peloton...
April 6, 2020

Judge McMahon’s Motions in Limine Rulings Clear Way for Ferring v. Serenity Trial

The years-long dispute may finally be headed for trial between Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its affiliates, Serenity Pharmaceuticals, LLC, and Reprise Biopharmaceutics, LLC over patents claiming a sublingual application of desmopressin, a drug used to treat symptoms of diabetes insipidus,...
March 26, 2020

Judge Ramos Finds “Bad Faith” Enforcement of a Patent is Not Patent Misuse

On March 23, 2020, U.S. District Court Judge Edgardo Ramos granted a motion to dismiss counterclaims and strike affirmative defenses because they were not plausible and did not meet the heightened pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Plaintiff Signify...
March 26, 2020

Judge Woods Finds Dating App Patent Doesn’t “Match Up” With Section 101

On March 6, 2020, United States District Court Judge Gregory H. Woods (S.D.N.Y.) granted Defendant Humor Rainbow Inc.’s (“Humor”) motion to dismiss. The Court found that the asserted claim of U.S. Patent 6,685,479 (“the ’479 patent”) was invalid under 35...
March 16, 2020

As Trial Concludes, Judge Hellerstein Issues, then Reconsiders, Patent Marking Ruling

As trial in Kaufman v. Microsoft Corporation wound down yesterday, United States District Court Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein (S.D.N.Y.) granted Defendant Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”)’s motion to limit damages to those after the filing of the complaint under 35 U.S.C. §...
February 6, 2020

Judge Hellerstein Holds Post-Suit Knowledge of Patent Inadequate to Survive Summary Judgment of No Willful Infringement

On January 22, 2020, United States District Court Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein (S.D.N.Y.) denied Defendant Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”)’s motion for summary judgment as to non-infringement, but granted Microsoft’s motion as to willful infringement, holding that willfulness should not go to the...
February 3, 2020

Judge Hellerstein Allows Damages Expert Testimony as “Posture” Isn’t Everything

On January 14, 2020, United States District Court Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein (S.D.N.Y.) denied Plaintiff Michael Philip Kaufman’s motion to exclude testimony from Defendant Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”)’s damages expert, finding that Plaintiff’s objections would be more properly raised during cross-examination. Defendant’s...
January 24, 2020

Judge Moses Holds Awards of More Than $1 are Not “Nominal”

Judge Paul G. Gardephe recently issued an Order of Default against Defendant Deep Blue Health New Zealand Ltd. (“Deep Blue Health”). Deep Blue Health had been accused of patent infringement by Plaintiff American Infertility of New York, P.C. (“American Infertility”),...
January 24, 2020

Judge Abrams Analyzes Application of Collateral Estoppel Doctrine Even Though Parties Didn’t Dispute It

On January 13, 2020, District Judge Ronnie Abrams (S.D.N.Y.) granted Defendant Chegg Inc.'s ("Chegg") motion to dismiss Plaintiff NetSoc, LLC's ("NetSoc") complaint on the ground that NetSoc is collaterally estopped from pursuing its claims of infringement of U.S. Patent No....
January 21, 2020

Plaintiff’s Filing of Action Outside of State of Residence Supports Transfer of Action

On January 14, 2020, District Judge Ronnie Abrams (S.D.N.Y.) granted Defendant LinkedIn Corp.'s ("LinkedIn") motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), to transfer to the Northern District of California a patent infringement action brought against it by Plaintiff NetSoc, LLC's...
January 21, 2020

Judge Castel Holds that Contemporaneous Documents Speak Louder than Words

On September 27, 2019, Judge P. Kevin Castel (S.D.N.Y) concluded that Serenity Pharmaceuticals Corporation (“Serenity”) and Reprise Biopharmaceutics, LLC (“Reprise”) had failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Seymour Fein, a former consultant for Ferring B.V., Ferring International...
December 10, 2019

Judge Abrams Finds That Working from Home Does Not Mean Venue is Proper

On October 2, 2019, District Judge Ronnie Abrams (S.D.N.Y.) granted Defendant Quora Inc.’s (“Quora”) motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. Quora is a Delaware corporation. While Plaintiff NetSoc, LLC (“NetSoc”) alleged that Quora’s principal place of...
October 23, 2019

Judge Netburn Finds Defendant That Won Partial Summary Judgment Is a "Prevailing Party" for Purposes of Attorneys' Fees

In her September 2018 summary judgment decision, U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan (S.D.N.Y.) found that one of seven patents asserted by Plaintiff Seoul Viosys Co. ("SVC") was invalid, and that SVC was not entitled to a remedy for infringement...
October 22, 2019

Lights Out: Judge Carter Grants Motion to Dismiss For Improper Venue

On September 30, 2019—more than two years after Plaintiff, Electric Mirror, LLC (“Electric Mirror”) first brought suit for patent infringement in the Southern District of New York—United States District Judge Andrew L. Carter granted Defendants Project Light, LLC, Project Light,...
October 15, 2019

Judge Ramos Determines That Rule 45 Allows the Person Subject to a Subpoena—Not a Party—to Consent to Transfer

On October 3, 2019, District Judge Edgardo Ramos  (S.D.N.Y.) granted SBA Communications Corporation’s (“SBA”) motion to transfer to the Eastern District of Texas a dispute over a subpoena served by Fractus, S.A. (“Fractus”) in connection with an ongoing  patent infringement lawsuit...
October 9, 2019

Judge Cote Dismisses Complaint that Doesn’t Adequately Allege Infringement of an Abstract Idea

On October 2, 2019, District Judge Denise Cote (S.D.N.Y.) granted Defendant Green Dot Corporation's ("Green Dot") motion to dismiss Plaintiff Western Express Bancshares, Inc.'s ("Western Express") complaint on the grounds that the complaint fails to state a plausible claim of patent...
October 8, 2019

Judge Oetken Clarifies the Evidentiary Proof Needed for a Preliminary Injunction

On September 11, 2019, Judge J. Paul Oetken issued an order illustrating key factors a patentee is required to prove in order to obtain an injunction barring sales of a defendant’s allegedly infringing products pending the conclusion of the litigation. In Ever Victory...
October 4, 2019

Judge Hall Holds an Answer Waived Privilege by Selectively Pleading Protected Communications

On September 19, 2019, U.S. District Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall denied an appeal by the defendant in a litigation to correct the inventorship of patents of rulings by Magistrate Judges Gary R. Brown and Peggy Kuo that the defendant had waived...
October 3, 2019

Judge Rakoff Awards Damages Based On Plaintiff’s Estimate of International Sales

SIMO Holding Inc. ("SIMO") sued Defendants uCloudlink Network Technology Ltd. and uCloudlink (America), Ltd. (together, "uCloudlink") in June 2018, alleging infringement of SIMO's U.S. Patent No. 9,736,789 by a line of mobile WiFi hotspot devices and a mobile "world phone"...
October 2, 2019

Licensee May Bring Infringement Suit, For Now

On September 11, 2019, United States District J. Paul Oetken denied Defendants Tekno Products, Inc. and Max Deluxe Limited (“Max Deluxe”)’s motion for judgement on the pleadings in a patent infringement action pending in the Southern District of New York.  Defendants...
September 27, 2019

Plaintiff's Infringement Contentions Proved Anticipation of Its Own Patent

On August 16, 2019, U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan (S.D.N.Y.) denied Plaintiff Seoul Viosys Co.'s ("SVC") motion for reconsideration of the court's September 2018 summary judgment decision, and, on August 21, 2019, the clerk entered judgment in favor of Defendant...
August 28, 2019

Stay In Place: Judge Azrack Declines to Lift Stay Until Federal Circuit Weighs In

On August 6, 2019, United States District Judge Joan M. Azrack denied Plaintiff Andrea Electronics Corporation (“Andrea”)’s motion to lift the stay in Andrea Electronics Corp. v. Apple Inc., No. 16-cv-5220 (E.D.N.Y.) and, accordingly, granted Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”)’s cross-motion...
August 12, 2019

Judge Woods Construes Claims in View of Patents Incorporated by Reference in the Specification

On July 29, 2019, Judge Gregory Woods illustrated how subject matter that is incorporated by reference in the specification can impact the scope of the claims in claim construction. In Kewazinga, the plaintiff asserted infringement of three patents describing telepresence systems...
August 6, 2019

Defendants May Proceed with Inter Partes Review Petitions Despite Forum Selection Clause

On July 2, 2019, District Judge Denise Cote (S.D.N.Y.) denied Plaintiff NuCurrent Inc.'s ("NuCurrent") motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to have Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, "Samsung") withdraw and dismiss its IPR petitions. NuCurrent...
July 8, 2019

Judge Daniels Settles an “Over the Top” Dispute Finding “Upper” Means “Above”

On June 12, 2019, Judge George B. Daniels (S.D.N.Y.) ruled on claim construction disputes in an action brought by Plaintiff The Topps Company, Inc. (“Topps”) against Koko’s Confectionery & Novelty (“Koko”). Topps alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,660,316 (“the ’316...
July 1, 2019

Buried Broadband and Single Layer Capacitor Competitors Head to Trial

Trial is underway between Plaintiffs American Technical Ceramics Corp. and AVX Corp. (together, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Presidio Components, Inc. (“Presidio”), following the Court’s May 30, 2019 ruling on the parties’ Daubert motions and May 31, 2019 ruling on the parties’ various...
June 19, 2019

Balancing Considerations, Judge Rakoff Grants “Modest” Enhancement of Damages

On June 3, 2019, Judge Jed S. Rakoff (S.D.N.Y.) granted in part Plaintiff SIMO Holdings, Inc. (“SIMO”)’s application for increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.  The ruling followed a series of favorable decisions and verdicts for SIMO, including: summary judgment...
June 18, 2019

Judge Schofield Rules Claims that “Comprise” Elements “Consisting Of” Other Elements Are “Closed-Ended”

On June 4, 2019, Judge Lorna G. Schofield (S.D.N.Y.) ruled on claim construction disputes in an action brought by Plaintiff EMED Technologies Corporation (“EMED”) against Defendant Repro-Med. Systems, Inc. (“RMS”). EMED alleged infringement by RMS of U.S. Patent No. 9,808,576 (“the...
June 14, 2019

Judge Woods Transfers Case to Where the Witnesses and Documents Are Located

On June 11, 2019, District Judge Gregory Woods (S.D.N.Y.) granted Defendants HTC Corp.'s and HTC America, Inc.'s ("HTC America") (collectively, "HTC") motion to transfer a patent infringement case brought by Dynamic Data Technologies, LLC ("DDT") to the Western District of...
June 13, 2019

Judge McMahon Holds that Ferring’s Arguments Do Not Undermine Patent Examiner

On April 22, 2019, Judge Colleen McMahon (S.D.N.Y.) denied plaintiffs Ferring’s (“Ferring”) motion for summary judgment on invalidity due to lack of written description and lack of enablement and motion for summary judgment on non-infringement in Ferring B.V. v. Serenity Pharm.,...
May 16, 2019

Judge Rakoff Rules "And" can mean "Or"

On April 25, 2019, United States District Judge Jed S. Rakoff (S.D.N.Y.) ruled that in the context of a patent, there are times when the conjunctive claim term "and" can be interpreted to mean a disjunctive "or".  Judge Rakoff ruled that...
April 30, 2019

Judge Hellerstein Upholds the Sufficiency of a Complaint that Alleges "Any Implementation" of a Standard is Infringed by Components that Comply with that Standard

On April 23, 2019, United States District Judge Alvin Hellerstein (S.D.N.Y.) denied Defendant Dell Inc.'s motion to dismiss Data Technologies' amended complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Data Technologies' complaint alleges that certain Dell products containing...
April 29, 2019

Judge Cote Interprets Covenant Not to Sue as Broader Than License Grant Within the Same Contract

On Apri1 15, 2019, District Judge Denise Cote (S.D.N.Y.) denied Defendant St. Lawrence Communications, LLC ("SLC")'s motion for summary judgment that the scope of a covenant not to sue does not preclude a separate lawsuit for patent infringement against LG Electronics,...
April 16, 2019

Use it or Lose It: Judge Cote Denies Motion for Sanctions as Untimely

On April 1, 2019, United States District Judge Denise Cote (S.D.N.Y.) denied Plaintiff Wine Enthusiast, Inc.'s motion for sanctions against Defendant Vinotemp for filing an allegedly frivolous counterclaim of design patent infringement. Wine Enthusiast's motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)...
April 3, 2019

Water-Resistant Zipper Patent Also Resists Invalidity Arguments and Survives Summary Judgment

On March 31, U.S. District Judge Gregory H. Woods (S.D.N.Y.) ruled on various summary judgment motions of Plaintiffs Au New Haven, LLC and Trelleborg Coated Systems US, Inc. (together, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant YKK Corporation and its affiliates (together, “YKK”).  Judge...
April 3, 2019

Judge Furman Denies Summary Judgment to Defendant and Construes Disputed Claim Terms for “Cool” Pet Beds

On March 13, 2019, District Judge Jesse M. Furman (S.D.N.Y.) ruled on Defendant European Home Design, LLC’s (“European Home”) motion for summary judgment, as well as the parties briefing on claim construction of certain disputed terms in U.S. Patent No. 8,720,...
March 26, 2019

Judge Matsumoto "Puts to Bed" Claim Construction Disputes by Adopting Several Independent Constructions, But Defers Ruling on Indefiniteness

On February 25, 2019, District Judge Kiyo Matsumoto (E.D.N.Y.) ruled on claim construction and indefiniteness disputes in an action brought by Plaintiff Bedgear, LLC against Defendant Fredman Bros. Furniture Co., Inc. d/b/a as Glideaway Sleep Prods. Plaintiff alleged infringement by...
March 6, 2019

Judge Ramos Finds Notice of Infringement Letter to Reseller Isn’t so Bad

On February 8, 2019, United States District Judge Edgardo Ramos (S.D.N.Y.) issued a decision granting Defendants AAVN and Next Creations Holding's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Globe Cotyarn's federal law claim of false advertising under the Lanham Act, and New York...
February 12, 2019

You Can’t Use That Now: Judge Matsumoto Estops Defendant from Using Prior Art It Could Have Used During IPR

On January 30, 2019, District Judge Matsumoto (E.D.N.Y.) ruled that Defendant Presidio Components, Inc. (“Presidio”) was estopped from asserting invalidity grounds that were not included in its petition for inter partes review against U.S. Patent No. 6,144,547 (“the ’547 patent). Plaintiffs American...
February 6, 2019

Judge Sweet Holds “Transmucosal” Delivery Does Not Require Mucosal Membrane Absorption

On January 22, 2019, Judge Robert W. Sweet (S.D.N.Y.) issued a claim construction opinion in Ferring B.V. v. Serenity Pharm., LLC following a Markman hearing.  Plaintiffs Ferring (“Ferring”) moved for claim construction of disputed preamble claim terms in U.S. Patent...
January 28, 2019

Judge Oetken Sua Sponte Transfers Action to California Upon Holding that Pendent Venue Cannot Be Exercised Over a Patent Infringement Claim

On January 2, 2019, District Judge Paul Oetken (S.D.N.Y.) transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ("CDCA") an action brought by Plaintiff NextEngine, Inc. against Defendants NextEngine, Inc. (not a typographical error) and Mark Knighton ("Knighton")....
January 7, 2019

Judge Gold Rules that Standing for CBMs Is Different from Standing for Breach of a Patent License Agreement

On December 5, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold (E.D.N.Y.) recommended denying a motion for summary judgment by defendant Mastercard International Inc. (“Mastercard”), as well as plaintiff Alexsam, Inc.’s (“Alexsam”) motion to dismiss Mastercard’s counterclaims alleging invalidity and...
December 19, 2018

Page 4 of 6

Our Patent Practice

NYPatentDecisionsBlog.com is a source for the latest patent decisions from the U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. The blog is authored by Patterson Belknap’s Patent Litigation practice group, whose members are highly experienced trial attorneys with extensive technical knowledge. Many have advanced scientific degrees and industry experience in fields such as communications, electrical and electro-optical technology, semiconductor technology, metallurgical engineering, chemistry and biochemistry. The team represents consumer products, electrical and software, medical device, mechanical, and pharmaceutical companies in a broad range of patent litigation matters, including district court cases, PTO and PTAB trial proceedings, patent licensing and contractual disputes concerning patent rights.

Read More

Editor in Chief

  • Contact Lewis V. Popovski.

    Lewis V. Popovski

    212.336.2610

    Email

Blog Contributors

  • Contact Lewis V. Popovski.

    Lewis V. Popovski

    212.336.2610

    Email

  • Contact Alexander A. Ivanovic.

    Alexander A. Ivanovic

    212.336.2293

    Email

  • Contact Tiffany Li.

    Tiffany Li

    212.336.2848

    Email

  • Contact Ryan J. Sheehan.

    Ryan J. Sheehan

    212.336.2123

    Email

  • Contact George S.  Soussou.

    George S. Soussou

    212.336.2208

    Email

  • Contact Matthew B. Weiss.

    Matthew B. Weiss

    212.336.2455

    Email

Posts
Subscribe

Firm Highlights

Publication
U.S. Department of Education Formally Reverts to Title IX Rules from 2020
On September 29, 2026, the U.S. Department of Education (the “ED”) published a Final Rule, “Recodification of Title IX Rules,” formally removing the 2024 Title IX Rule from the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) and restoring the provisions of the 2020 Title IX Rule, with a few exceptions.[1] The 2026 Title IX Rule took effect upon publication. For most schools, colleges, and other recipients of federal education funding, the 2026 Rule does not change day-to-day obligations, because the 2020 framework has governed since early 2025. It does, however, close a chapter of litigation and set the stage for further regulatory action. As we reported in our February 6, 2025 Alert, a federal district court vacated the entirety of the 2024...
Firm News
Barbara Mullin Named Among Benchmark Litigation’s 2026 Top 250 Women in Litigation
Partner Barbara Mullin has been named one of Benchmark Litigation’s 2026 Top 250 Women in Litigation. The ranking uses an extensive research process, including “months of investigation into individual litigators’ professional activities as well as client feedback surveys and one-on-one interviews” to identify women who are “top players” in their field. To learn more, please click here.
Blog Post
AI Companies Find Value in Bankrupt Companies
Spirit Airlines filed for bankruptcy in November 2024 and, after emerging from bankruptcy, filed again in August 2025. During the second case, the company tried to find a way to keep the airline in business but to no avail. In May 2026, Spirit Airlines pivoted towards a wind-down and ceased operations. This summer, as a part of its wind-down, Spirit Airlines began marketing its remaining assets. It had plenty of traditional assets to sell. For example, the debtors’ bid procedures motion filed in May 2026 listed the following assets: takeoff and landing slots at LaGuardia Airport; aircraft hangar(s); corporate headquarters; training center; multi-family residential buildings; ground service equipment; spare engines; flight simulators; aircraft maintenance equipment; and assets related to the...
Blog Post
You Win Some and Lose Some: Judge Liman Decides Competing Motions to Compel
On September 4, 2026, District Judge Lewis J. Liman (S.D.N.Y.) granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff Lashify, Inc.’s (“Lashify”) motion to compel discovery and denied Defendants Qingdao Network Technology Co., Ltd., d/b/a UCoolMe and Vivicute Limited’s (“UCoolMe”) motion to compel. Lashify, Inc. v. Qingdao Network Tech. Co., Ltd., No. 25-cv-4183 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 4, 2026). Lashify’s Motion to Compel Lashify moved to compel UCoolMe to provide responses to discovery requests relating to: (i) product samples and raw materials; (ii) manufacturing; (iii) employees and supply chain; (iv) marketing; and (v) finances. Id. at *2. The Court found that each of those topics were relevant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) and that UCoolMe did not sufficiently respond to discovery requests related to...
Firm News
Firm Attorneys Honored by The Legal Aid Society at 2026 Pro Publico Awards
On October 7, 2026, The Legal Aid Society honored Of Counsel David Dykhouse and Associates Kimberly Black and Jillian Horowitz at its annual Pro Bono Publico Awards Ceremony. The Pro Bono Publico Award recognizes pro bono partners for their outstanding contributions to advancing equal justice for New Yorkers. Mr. Dykhouse, Ms. Black, and Ms. Horowitz were honored for their work representing a group of tenants in connection with a real estate group’s bankruptcy filing. Prior to its bankruptcy, the group owned 93 different properties with over 5,000 residential units. The tenants lived in unsafe and unsanitary conditions due to real estate group’s years of neglect. Patterson Belknap filed an objection to the group’s proposed sale of its real estate portfolio, asserting that the...
Publication
Data Sale In Spirit Bankruptcy Raises Novel Privacy Risks
In August 2025, Spirit Airlines filed its second bankruptcy less than a year after its first. Although the company tried to find a way to keep the lights on, in May 2026, Spirit Airlines pivoted toward liquidation in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Though asset sales are routine practice in large Chapter 11 cases like Spirit Airlines, in this case, the debtors' proposed sale of assets has raised novel data privacy questions that the law may not be ready to answer. To continue reading Daniel A. Lowenthal and Kimberly Black's article on this topic, please click here.
Blog Post
Fees Recoverable by Oversecured Creditors in Bankruptcy: The Application of Code Sections 506(b) and 502(b)
Bankruptcy Code section 506(b) entitles an oversecured creditor to post-petition interest and reasonable fees and other charges. Are a creditor’s pre-petition charges also subject to a court’s view of what is reasonable? Courts are split on this issue. A judge in New York recently explained why, in his view, reasonableness is not the right standard for the pre-petition portion of a claim. Pre-petition charges should be determined by applicable state law and not a judge’s analysis of what is reasonable. In re 1300 Desert Willow Road, LLC, No. 25-11375, 2026 WL 2088511 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jul. 20, 2026). The debtor is a single-asset real estate company. The creditor had loaned the debtor $20 million secured by a mortgage on real property. The debtor...
Publication
Supreme Court Declines to Revisit “Undue Hardship” Standard in Religious Accommodations Cases
On October 5, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States denied a request by a group of Washington firefighters for further clarification as to whether employers accused of illegally denying religious accommodations pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”) must show that the requested workplace adjustments present an actual hardship. Petersen et al. v. Snohomish Regional Fire & Rescue et al., No. 25-1210. The Court’s denial of the petition for certiorari signals a vote of confidence from the Justices in their landmark 2023 Groff v. DeJoy decision, 600 U.S. 447 (2023), which heightened the previous “de minimis” standard for employers’ showing of undue hardship in cases of denied religious accommodations requests. Religious Accommodations and Undue...
Blog Post
Delaware Bankruptcy Court Crafts Test Concerning Post-Confirmation “Related-To” Jurisdiction
The filing of a bankruptcy case creates an estate consisting of the debtor’s legal and equitable property. The estate will continue until the debtor’s confirmed plan of reorganization or liquidation goes effective. It will then terminate, and the property will either revest in the reorganized debtor or be transferred to another entity such as a post-confirmation liquidation trust. Now and then, bankruptcy judges face this issue: after plan confirmation, when can a liquidation trustee assert state law claims in a lawsuit filed in the bankruptcy court? In terms of a bankruptcy court’s subject matter jurisdiction, the question can be articulated this way: when can a bankruptcy court have post-confirmation related-to jurisdiction over such claims under 28 U.S.C. section 1334?[i] A bankruptcy judge...
Firm News
Law360 Spotlights Firm’s Litigation Department
Joshua Goldberg, Partner and Chair of the firm’s Litigation Department, was profiled by Law360 on the hallmarks of the department, including its trial-ready mindset and commitment to zealous advocacy. The feature also highlights the firm’s single-office operation as a key strength, along with its unique clerkship hiring model, focus on talent development, strategic lateral recruiting, and diverse litigation practice offerings. The profile is featured in Law360’s Litigation Daily and New York Pulse. To read the full profile, please click here.
Publication
U.S. Department of Education Formally Reverts to Title IX Rules from 2020
On September 29, 2026, the U.S. Department of Education (the “ED”) published a Final Rule, “Recodification of Title IX Rules,” formally removing the 2024 Title IX Rule from the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) and restoring the provisions of the 2020 Title IX Rule, with a few exceptions.[1] The 2026 Title IX Rule took effect upon publication. For most schools, colleges, and other recipients of federal education funding, the 2026 Rule does not change day-to-day obligations, because the 2020 framework has governed since early 2025. It does, however, close a chapter of litigation and set the stage for further regulatory action. As we reported in our February 6, 2025 Alert, a federal district court vacated the entirety of the 2024...
Firm News
Barbara Mullin Named Among Benchmark Litigation’s 2026 Top 250 Women in Litigation
Partner Barbara Mullin has been named one of Benchmark Litigation’s 2026 Top 250 Women in Litigation. The ranking uses an extensive research process, including “months of investigation into individual litigators’ professional activities as well as client feedback surveys and one-on-one interviews” to identify women who are “top players” in their field. To learn more, please click here.
Blog Post
AI Companies Find Value in Bankrupt Companies
Spirit Airlines filed for bankruptcy in November 2024 and, after emerging from bankruptcy, filed again in August 2025. During the second case, the company tried to find a way to keep the airline in business but to no avail. In May 2026, Spirit Airlines pivoted towards a wind-down and ceased operations. This summer, as a part of its wind-down, Spirit Airlines began marketing its remaining assets. It had plenty of traditional assets to sell. For example, the debtors’ bid procedures motion filed in May 2026 listed the following assets: takeoff and landing slots at LaGuardia Airport; aircraft hangar(s); corporate headquarters; training center; multi-family residential buildings; ground service equipment; spare engines; flight simulators; aircraft maintenance equipment; and assets related to the...
Blog Post
You Win Some and Lose Some: Judge Liman Decides Competing Motions to Compel
On September 4, 2026, District Judge Lewis J. Liman (S.D.N.Y.) granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff Lashify, Inc.’s (“Lashify”) motion to compel discovery and denied Defendants Qingdao Network Technology Co., Ltd., d/b/a UCoolMe and Vivicute Limited’s (“UCoolMe”) motion to compel. Lashify, Inc. v. Qingdao Network Tech. Co., Ltd., No. 25-cv-4183 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 4, 2026). Lashify’s Motion to Compel Lashify moved to compel UCoolMe to provide responses to discovery requests relating to: (i) product samples and raw materials; (ii) manufacturing; (iii) employees and supply chain; (iv) marketing; and (v) finances. Id. at *2. The Court found that each of those topics were relevant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) and that UCoolMe did not sufficiently respond to discovery requests related to...
Firm News
Firm Attorneys Honored by The Legal Aid Society at 2026 Pro Publico Awards
On October 7, 2026, The Legal Aid Society honored Of Counsel David Dykhouse and Associates Kimberly Black and Jillian Horowitz at its annual Pro Bono Publico Awards Ceremony. The Pro Bono Publico Award recognizes pro bono partners for their outstanding contributions to advancing equal justice for New Yorkers. Mr. Dykhouse, Ms. Black, and Ms. Horowitz were honored for their work representing a group of tenants in connection with a real estate group’s bankruptcy filing. Prior to its bankruptcy, the group owned 93 different properties with over 5,000 residential units. The tenants lived in unsafe and unsanitary conditions due to real estate group’s years of neglect. Patterson Belknap filed an objection to the group’s proposed sale of its real estate portfolio, asserting that the...
Publication
Data Sale In Spirit Bankruptcy Raises Novel Privacy Risks
In August 2025, Spirit Airlines filed its second bankruptcy less than a year after its first. Although the company tried to find a way to keep the lights on, in May 2026, Spirit Airlines pivoted toward liquidation in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Though asset sales are routine practice in large Chapter 11 cases like Spirit Airlines, in this case, the debtors' proposed sale of assets has raised novel data privacy questions that the law may not be ready to answer. To continue reading Daniel A. Lowenthal and Kimberly Black's article on this topic, please click here.
Litigation, Disputes & Investigationsicon right
Exempt Organizations & Private Clientsicon right
Corporate & Transactionsicon right
  • Contact Us
  • Subscribe
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy

1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10036 | Tel: 212.336.2000
© 2026 Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney Advertising. Website Credits