Delaware Code

10 Del. C. § 346 (2026)

Technology disputes

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section DE-DELCdelcode.delaware.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Code, and without limiting the jurisdiction vested in any court in this State, the Court of Chancery shall have power to mediate and jurisdiction to hear and determine technology disputes as defined herein when:

(1) The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of or mediation by the Court of Chancery by agreement or by stipulation;

(2) At least 1 party is a “business entity” as defined herein;

(3) At least 1 party is a business entity formed or organized under the laws of this State or having its principal place of business in this State;

(4) No party is a “consumer”, as that term is defined in § 2731 of Title 6, with respect to the technology dispute; and

(5) In the case of technology disputes involving solely a claim for monetary damages, the amount in controversy is no less than $1,000,000 or such greater amount as the Court of Chancery determines by rule.

Neither punitive damages nor a jury trial shall be available for a technology dispute heard and determined by the Court of Chancery pursuant to this section. Mediation proceedings shall be considered confidential and not of public record.

(b) A “business entity” means a corporation, statutory trust, business trust or association, a real estate investment trust, a common-law trust, or any other unincorporated business, including a partnership (whether general (including a limited liability partnership) or limited (including a limited liability limited partnership)) or a limited liability company.

(c) (1) A “technology dispute” means a dispute arising out of an agreement and relating primarily to: the purchase or lease of computer hardware; the development, use, licensing or transfer of computer software; information, biological, pharmaceutical, agricultural or other technology of a complex or scientific nature that has commercial value, or the intellectual property rights pertaining thereto; the creation or operation of Internet web sites; rights or electronic access to electronic, digital or similar information; or support or maintenance of the above.

(2) The term “technology dispute” does not include a dispute arising out of an agreement:

a. That is primarily a financing transaction; or

b. Merely because the parties’ agreement is formed by, or contemplates that communications about the transaction will be by, the transmission of electronic, digital or similar information.

(3) The Court shall interpret the term “technology dispute” liberally so as to effectuate the intent of this section to provide an expeditious and expert forum for the handling of technology disputes involving parties who have agreed to resolve their disputes in the Court of Chancery, whether the parties are seeking to have the Court of Chancery:

a. Mediate the dispute only;

b. Mediate the dispute initially, and if that fails, adjudicate the dispute; or

c. Adjudicate the dispute.

The Court shall adopt rules to facilitate the efficient processing of technology disputes, including rules to govern the filing of mediation only technology disputes, and to set filing fees and other cost schedules for the processing of technology disputes.

74 Del. Laws, c. 36, §  1
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2016–2024 · leading case: Cont'l Auto. Sys., Inc. v. Nokia Corp. (Del. Ch. 2023).
Cont'l Auto. Sys., Inc. v. Nokia Corp. (Del. Ch. 2023). · cites it 3× “The Parties agree that any dispute arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be litigated in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 346. The Parties agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware…”
JCM Innovation Corp. v. FL Acquisition Holdings, Inc. (Del. Super. Ct. 2016). · cites it 2× “33 Chancery Rule 92 states: (a) Provided that the parties and the amount in controversy meet the eligibility requirements in 10 Del. C. § 346, a written agreement to engage in litigation in the Court of Chancery is acceptable if it contains the following language: “The parties…”
VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp. (N.D. Cal. 2024). “This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with and governed by federal law or, where applicable, 25 the laws of the State of Delaware, without giving effect to the choice- of-law rules of Delaware.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.