(stating elements of tortious interference with prospective contractual relations claim); DeBerry v. McCain, 275 S.C. 569, 274 S.E.2d 293, 296 (1981) (stating elements of tortious interference with contract claim); Crandall Corp. v. Navistar Int’l Transp. Corp., 302 S.C. 265, 395 S.E.2d 179, 180 (1990) (stating elements of tortious interference with prospective contractual relations claim). Therefore, the resolution of Pechiney's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the tortious interference claims does not depend on a choice of law determination, and, for convenience, I cite to precedent based on Delaware law. 12 . Hunter-Douglas was later overruled on a point not pertinent here. See Midwest Industries, Inc. v. Karavan Trailers, Inc., 175 F.3d 1356, 1358-59 (Fed.Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). 13 . Thomas Grabowski is an employee of
holding that federal circuit would henceforth apply its own law rather than regional circuit law to questions involving the relationship between patent law and other federal and state law rights holding that federal courts presiding over causes of action created by state law should apply state substantive law but federal procedural law holding that in diversity cases federal courts are to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law holding that a transferee federal court should apply its interpretations of federal law not the constructions of federal law of the transferor circuit holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law