Affinity marketing company Upromise, Inc. retained us to join its defense team in connection with an action entitled Savor, Inc. v. FMR, Inc. & Upromise, Inc., No. 00C-10-249-JRS (Del. Super. Ct.). Upromise turned to us as a less expensive lead counsel once the Delaware Supreme Court reversed a dismissal obtained by prestigious national counsel. Savor claimed that it had invented and disclosed to Boston-based Fidelity the college savings affinity marketing idea that is the basis of Upromise’s successful business model, and alleged that Fidelity leaked the idea to Upromise. Within weeks of our retention, we moved for summary judgment – even though it was very early in the case – ultimately resulting in the intended effect of limiting discovery to only the issues raised in our summary judgment motion. Once initial discovery was complete, we moved again for summary judgment, having avoided many months of expensive and intensive discovery for Upromise on otherwise irrelevant issues. On July 15, 2004, the Superior Court granted summary judgment on all claims, and on January 31, 2005, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. Savor, Inc. v. FMR, Inc., No. 00-C-10-249 (Del. Super. Ct). See also Destination Marketing, Inc. v. Kessler Financial Services, L.P., Nos. 00-CIV-1177 & 00-CIV-11775-MEL (D. Mass. Nov. 2, 2001) (we obtained summary judgment for Upromise and certain officers and employees against claims similar to Savor suit).