Search for: "Smart v. USA"
Results 141 - 160
of 175
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 May 2010, 11:59 pm
As far as I can tell, it appears to be a smart move. [read post]
16 Apr 2010, 12:25 pm
., v. [read post]
1 Mar 2010, 7:11 pm
Smart or not? [read post]
1 Mar 2010, 7:11 pm
Smart or not? [read post]
15 Feb 2010, 4:04 am
China considered sold ‘within the United States’ for infringement purposes: SEB S.A. v. [read post]
5 Oct 2009, 11:41 am
Kellogg USA, 2007 WL 4766060 (C.D. [read post]
16 Sep 2009, 1:47 pm
New Massachusetts companies. [read post]
15 Sep 2009, 10:00 pm
Students We have smart students with upwardly mobile ambitions. [read post]
9 Sep 2009, 5:30 am
T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2009). [read post]
17 Aug 2009, 10:44 am
Weymouth, MA; Anne Hilbert, President) Aerosoft Usa, Inc. [read post]
18 Jul 2009, 7:31 am
Khuzami also outlined organizational changes under consideration with a focus on making the Enforcement Division more “strategic, swift, smart and successful,” including: • creating specialized groups of attorneys along product, market or transactional lines and increasing collaboration among staff across regions; • flattening the management structure of the Division and reducing… [read post]
18 Jul 2009, 6:12 am
A case filed on July 10, 2009 in the New York Eastern District Court by Miguel Agui, Alexander Reyes and James Gipson v T-Mobile USA will provide the answer. [read post]
15 Jun 2009, 3:00 am
(Spicy IP) Design v copyright: need for a clear and rational distinction: Microfibres v Giridhar & Co & Ors (Spicy IP) Madras High Court: jurisdiction - can design infringement case can be filed in Court where plaintiff resides? [read post]
15 Jun 2009, 3:00 am
(Spicy IP) Design v copyright: need for a clear and rational distinction: Microfibres v Giridhar & Co & Ors (Spicy IP) Madras High Court: jurisdiction - can design infringement case can be filed in Court where plaintiff resides? [read post]
10 Jun 2009, 7:49 pm
Beazer Homes USA Inc. et al, Case No. 09-cv-01038 (D. [read post]
18 May 2009, 5:24 am
’ (China Law Blog) Europe ECJ finds similar marks on wine and glasses not likely to cause confusion: Waterford Wedgewood plc v Assembled Investments (Proprietary) Ltd, OHIM (Class 46) (IPKat) AG Colomer opines in Maple leaf trade mark battle: joined cases American Clothing Associates SA v OHIM and OHIM v American Clothing Associates SA (IPKat) (Excess Copyright) CFI: Restitutio and time limits: how does the law stand now for CTMs? [read post]
30 Mar 2009, 5:20 am
Today’s Legal Times updates readers on developments in Young v. [read post]
27 Mar 2009, 7:20 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Think Tank Global Week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included: US CAFC: Continuation limits invalid; limits on claims and RCEs are ok: Tafas v Doll (Patently-O) (Law360) (Hal Wegner) (IAM) (Patent Baristas) (Promote the Progress) (Patent Docs) (Patent Docs) (Patent Docs) (IP Spotlight) (Inventive Step) (IP Watchdog) (Washington State Patent Law Blog) (Anticipate This!) [read post]
5 Mar 2009, 4:00 am
(Peter Zura's 271 Patent Blog) US General – Decisions California state appeals court upholds Bank of America win in trade secret spat with K C Multimedia (Law360) US General – Lawsuits and strategic steps Canon USA – Canon sues former employee for revealing trade secrets to rival Ikon Office Solutions in violation of confidentiality agreement (Law360) US Patent Reform Patent Reform Act of 2009 introduced in Senate and House… [read post]
9 Oct 2008, 4:28 am
As long as plaintiffs' counsel are smart enough to plead what PLAL tells them to, they're home free. [read post]
