Search for: "Goggle, Inc."
Results 41 - 53
of 53
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Dec 2010, 8:54 am
By Robin Cleary After nine years of protracted litigation, a Santa Clara jury unanimously decided that Marvell Semiconductor Inc. did not misappropriate Jasmine Network Inc.'s trade secrets and did not violate a non-disclosure agreement according to published reports. [read post]
28 May 2010, 7:57 am
Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. [read post]
20 Apr 2010, 5:00 am
For example, the Polaris, made by Polaris Industries Inc. recalled about 11,300 Outlaw IRS ATVs for the model year 2006 to 2008. [read post]
16 Feb 2010, 4:30 am
., Inc., the court denied in part the defendant manufacturer's motion for partial summary judgment because although the warning would have been visible to a watercraft's driver, it may not have been so easily seen by a passenger. [read post]
25 Oct 2009, 8:42 am
Harlingen did not have night-vision goggles for its pilots. [read post]
19 Oct 2009, 8:42 am
Two defendants were named in the suit: Metro Aviation, Inc., the company which operated the helicopter, and South Texas Emergency Foundation. [read post]
6 Jul 2009, 10:06 am
Google, Inc., CV 09-03934 (C.D. [read post]
6 Feb 2009, 7:00 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Think Tank Global Week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included: WTO report confirms USTR lost on key issue of whether China’s thresholds for criminal IP enforcement are too high (Managing Intellectual Property) (IP Justice) (IP Justice) (China Hearsay) (China Law Blog) US: Judd Gregg to be nominated as Secretary of Commerce (Inventive Step) (IP Watchdog) (Peter Zura's 271 Patent Blog)… [read post]
29 Jan 2009, 11:00 pm
Anticancer, Inc., 71 USPQ2d 1301, 1306 (TTAB 2004). [read post]
1 Dec 2008, 12:00 pm
Imports, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Aug 2008, 6:40 pm
Because the pool was murky, he had to use goggles to find Blake. [read post]
15 Aug 2008, 6:40 pm
Because the pool was murky, he had to use goggles to find Blake. [read post]
19 May 2008, 1:12 am
The case is titled Oakley, Inc. v. [read post]
