Search for: "Alexander v. USA" Results 1 - 20 of 123
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Feb 2024, 6:31 am by Linda Panszczyk
As for the injunction, the Fifth Circuit agreed with Rolex that the district court should have enjoined the sale of Rolex watches with non-genuine bezels, thus affirming, as modified, the district court’s injunction in part (Rolex Watch USA, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Oct 2014, 5:05 pm by Sabrina I. Pacifici
Via FAS, there are several dozen documents in this compendium including: On January 6, 2011, the Department of Justice announced the indictment of former CIA officer Jeffrey A. [read post]
12 Oct 2022, 8:20 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
See Jean Alexander Cosmetics, Inc. v. [read post]
., Ltd. and HEC Pharm USA Inc., vacated its prior decision, and reversed the district court’s judgment that the claims of patent at issue were not invalid (Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. v. [read post]
18 Jun 2010, 6:21 am by Big Tent Democrat
Slovenia - : Samir Handanovic, Bojan Jokic, Marko Suler, Bostjan Cesar, Miso Brecko, Valter Birsa, Robert Koren, Alexander Radosavlevic, Andraz Kirm, Milivoje Novakovic, Zlatko Dedic. [read post]
But the court, in adopting an expansive reading of a recent Supreme Court precedent, cautioned that the news publication might have a strong defense on the likelihood of confusion analysis (Punchbowl, Inc. v. [read post]
The board’s claim construction and motivation to combine analysis were supported by the record (Shamoon v. [read post]
The court, in affirming a district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction freezing sales of the parody shoe, also found that the district court acted within its discretion in weighing the traditional likelihood of confusion factors (Vans, Inc. v. [read post]
9 Jun 2022, 4:03 am by Linda O'Brien (CCH)
Thus, the Board’s decision that the challenged claims of the patent were unpatentable was affirmed (Ethicon LLC v. [read post]
Any error in the Board’s claim construction was harmless and substantial evidence, including the claim language and expert testimony, supported the Board’s findings of motivation to combine (Bot M8 LLC v. [read post]
Justice Gorsuch, in a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Sotomayor, expressed strong disagreement with the majority’s interpretation of Section 315(b) as “another step down the road of ceding core judicial powers to agency officials and leaving the disposition of private rights and liberties to bureaucratic mercy” (Thryv, Inc. v. [read post]
A dissenting judge argued that one of the patents contained plausibly valid claims that recited technical improvements to a graphical user interface (International Business Machines Corp. v. [read post]
9 Oct 2009, 9:11 am
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. [read post]
1 Sep 2017, 3:22 pm by Eugene Volokh
That’s the hot, exciting subject of Wednesday’s Nevada federal district court decision in Alexander v. [read post]