SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals Co. v. Merck & Co., Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that a plaintiff’s breach “does not necessarily require the application of the unclean hands doctrine”
• observing that Delaware’s contractual statute of limitations “is not a discovery statute” and so, absent tolling, constructive knowledge of the breach is enough to trigger the statutory period (internal quotations marks omitted)
• observing that Delaware’s contractual statute of limitations “is not a discovery statute” and so, absent tolling, constructive knowledge of the breach is enough to trigger the statutory period (internal quotation marks omitted)
• affirming Court of Chancery’s refusal to invoke the doctrine of unclean hands where particular breach of contract was not “repugnant”
• “Whether the [trial court] applied the correct standard . . . is a question of law which is reviewed de novo.”
• “Whether the trade secrets were generally known or readily ascertainable and whether Merck took reasonable precautions to protect their secrecy is a question of fact.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).