Search for: "ALEXANDER v. HOLDER" Results 1 - 20 of 123
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Dec 2023, 7:15 am by Kluwer Patent Blog
Thus, with its order of July 11, 2023, it allowed an appeal to proceed (see case C-93/23, EUIPO v Neoperl). [read post]
In Nokia v Oppo, the former was the holder of three SEPs, which were important for streamlining cellular devices to be compliant to 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G technology, and declared as a standard. [read post]
25 Jul 2023, 1:43 am by Matthieu Dhenne (Dhenne Avocats)
Or that the credibility of the technical effect is assessed at the priority or filing date (e.g., TGI Paris, October 6, 2009, RG n°07/16446, Teva v. [read post]
16 Jul 2023, 11:56 pm by Kluwer Patent blogger
It will focus on the s.10(3) trade mark infringement elements of the judgment and the potential impact this may have for rights holders. [read post]
6 Jun 2023, 11:23 am by Steve Bainbridge
”); id. at *13 n.16 (“[T]he Supreme Court’s subsequent decisions have called into question Borak’s dicta that a shareholder has a right to bring a derivative § 14(a) action”). [5] See Alexander v. [read post]
28 Feb 2023, 3:51 pm by Amy Howe
Two separate challenges were before the court on Tuesday, but the justices spent most of their time and energy on the first case, which is known as Biden v. [read post]
4 Nov 2022, 6:32 am
Posted by Frederick Alexander, The Shareholder Commons, on Friday, November 4, 2022 Editor's Note: Frederick Alexander is the CEO of the Shareholder Commons. [read post]
3 Oct 2022, 6:53 pm by Mark Walsh
Josh Gerstein of Politico, with his colleague Alexander Ward, broke the story of the leaked draft opinion in Dobbs v. [read post]
7 Jul 2022, 7:15 am by David Hemming (Bristows)
This was a claim for revocation of European Patent (UK) 2 373 755 (“the Patent”) by Saint-Gobain (“SG”). 3M was the holder of the patent, which was titled “Dish-shaped abrasive particles with a recessed surface” and had a priority date of 17 December 2008. [read post]