Search for: "Hearing Components, Inc
v Shure, Inc"
Results 1 - 11 of 11
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by
Date
13 Mar 4:00 am
... Estonian Supreme Court rules on trade mark licensees and limitations: Stol-I AS v Liviko AS (Class 46) Finland Recent Supreme
Administrative Court decision concerning ... E D Texas: Patent verdict cut by ⅔ post verdict: Hearing Components, Inc v Shure, Inc (EDTexweblog.com) Portland jury finds validity and infringement ... dispute relating to process for manufacturing a blowing agent for rigid
insulating foams: Solvay v Honeywell (PATracer) St Clair Intellectual Property Consultants - Polaroid, T-Mobile ...
20 Jun, 2008 3:57 pm
Hearing Components v. Shure (E.D.Tex. 2008) Prior to the Markman hearing, the parties jointly requested a page length exception for their briefs. The problem, they argued, was that the three hearing aid patents in suit included a large number of disputed claims. In a recent order, Eastern District of Texas Judge Clark ... construed. Read O2 Micro
Read Judge Clark's Order See E.D.Tex Blog Hearing Components, Inc v. Shure, Inc
(9-07-cv-00104) TXED Tags: EDTX
10 Mar 12:34 pm
Hearing Components, Inc v. Shure, Inc (9-07-cv-00104) (E.D. Tex. March 6, 2009) Judge Clark. The
jury in this case returned a verdict for ... damages of $4.622 million on January 21 in Judge Clark's court. Defendant Shure filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL)
of noninfringement, and Judge Clark granted it, ... patents-in-suit. Accordingly, he struck the portion of the jury verdict awarding damages for infringement by Shure's straight
nozzle products, which totalled $3,230,635.00. The ...
9 Apr 9:27 am
... batteries (Afro-IP) Korea Determining reasonable remuneration for in-service inventions: Jung v Hanlim Pharm Co (International Law Office)
Lithuania Appeals Div State ... : Limitations in licensing agreements did not constitute patent misuse: Hearing Components,
Inc v Shure, Inc (EDTexweblog.com) District Court N D Illinois: Missing ... finding them generic or lacking acquired distinctiveness: Stuart Spector Designs, Ltd
v Fender Musical Instruments Corporation (TTABlog) TTAB precedential no 12: TTAB ...
3 Apr 7:00 am
Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure, Inc., 2009 WL 815526(E.D.Tex. Mar 26, 2009) (NO. 9:07-CV-104)
Judge: Ron Clark Judge Clark recently conducted a bench trial on the defendant's claims of laches and patent misuse in this case. While he denied the laches claim at the hearing, he issued this order later denying the patent miuse claim and setting forth his reason for concluding that the limitations in the plaintiff's
licensing agreements did not constitute patent misuse, either per se or ...
10 Mar 12:38 am
... , after seeing what did not work well, the party would have, mathematically, some 502 potential combinations of two or more references from which to choose. Some of them may
actually invalidate a claim, but is it clear and convincing evidence to the jury if that combination was not explained to them?" Hearing
Components, Inc. v. Shure, Inc., 9-07-cv-00104 (TXED March 6, 2009, Order)
30 Mar 12:18 am
... after the [last] patent expired . . . )." "Because [defendant] has not established that any of the complained-of limitations in [plaintiff's] licensing agreements constitute patent
misuse, either per se or under a 'rule of reason' analysis, the court will deny [defendant's] claims." Hearing Components,
Inc. v. Shure, Inc., 9-07-cv-00104 (TXED March 26, 2009, Memorandum & Order)
21 May 12:46 am
... . "[Defendant] need not individually identify each copy made, but it provided absolutely no explanation to the court of why these copies were necessary. The court cannot even
identify the purpose of some of these charges, much less determine necessity, from the papers submitted." Hearing Components,
Inc v. Shure, Inc., 9-07-00104 (TXED May 19, 2009, Order) District Judge Ron Clark
20 Jun, 2008 3:08 pm
Hearing Components, Inc v. Shure, Inc (9-07-cv-00104) TXED Judge: Ron Clark Holding:
Stipulated/Agreed Motion for Leave to Exceed the Page Limits for Claim Construction Briefs DENIED The ... I couldn't help but recall the late comedic master when I read Judge Clark's
June 13 order in the Hearing Components case pending before him in Lufkin. In that case the parties filed a joint motion to exceed the
page limits for Markman briefing from 35 pages per side to 45 because the case involved three patents ...
3 Apr 7:23 pm
... acquittal of alleged counterfeit sports shoe market purveyor: Essex Trading Standards v Wallati Singh (IPKat) Foreign IP: narrowing the
effect of Tyburn's case: ... trial in dispute with Star Scientific (Law360) Shure - Shure's patent misuse claims nixed in earphone case brought by Hearing Components (Law360) Skullcandy - Skullcandy drops ... N D Illinois: No dismissal on pleadings for factual trademark defences: DeVry
Inc v University of Medicine & Health Sciences - St Kitts
(Chicago Intellectual ...
23 Jan 1:00 am
... appeal against rejection of OPTIMUM on grounds of lack of distinctive character: Hi-Bred International, Inc. v OHIM (Class 46) CFI dismisses Commercy's appeal against refusal ... District Court E D Texas: Jury
awards hearing device manufacturer over $4.6 million after finding Shure infringed patent covering earphone technology ... generator
system (Law360) Rambus - Should the Supreme Court grant certiorari in FTC v Rambus? (Patently-O) Telematics - Acacia subsidiary Telematics and
Horizon Technologies ...
Search on: Blawgs.FM | BlawgSearch Google
Co-op | Blawg.com | Bloglines | Feedster | Google Blog Search | Technorati | Google | MSN | Yahoo!