In Horizon Personal Communications, Inc. v. Sprint Corporation, read opinion here, the Chancery Court made five key rulings in this latest part of a trilogy of factually intensive decisions: (1) Sprint Nextel will violate the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing if in plaintiffs’ Service Areas it offers certain products and services using the Sprint brand and marks; (2) Plaintiffs’ objections to certain Sprint Nextel actions that allegedly favor the legacy Nextel business are not ripe for judicial determination, while the remaining challenged actions do not violate the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing; (3) Plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent injunction to enforce their rights in the Sprint brand and marks in the Service Areas; (4) Nextel did not tortiously interfere with plaintiffs’ contracts with Sprint; (5) Plaintiffs did not prove the existence of a civil conspiracy.
There are many related cases and detailed facts which can be viewed at least in part in the following reported decisions related to this case: UbiquiTel, Inc. v. Sprint Corp., 2005 WL 3533697 (Del. Ch., Dec. 14, 2005) [UbiquiTel I]; and UbiquiTel, Inc. v. Sprint Corp., 2006 WL 44424 (Del. Ch., Jan. 4, 2006) [UbiquiTel II].
UbiquiTel I involved the denial of the motion of Nextel to dismiss for failure to state a claim and in UbiquiTel II the court dismissed without prejudice the claims of plaintiffs based on them not being ripe for adjudication, and also in that prior decision denied all cross-motions for summary judgment.