Search for: "Holding One Inc" Results 41 - 60 of 22,579
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Apr 2021, 4:03 pm by Sabrina I. Pacifici
Why Informal Information Sharing is Holding Your Organization Back, By Mary Ellen Bates: “Regardless of copyright licensing policies within most enterprises, there’s one thing that can’t be denied: there is a lot of informal collaboration going on right now. [read post]
2 Apr 2009, 12:44 am
Global Patent Holdings, represented by Niro Scavone, lost an appeal at the CAFC.Elsewhere, in the stent wars, Cordis Corporation ("Cordis") appeals, and Boston Scientific Corporation and Scimed Life Systems, Inc. [read post]
2 Aug 2023, 7:08 am by Matthew Dochnal
If done right, a holding company can provide unique legal protections that cannot be achieved with just one business entity. [read post]
23 Dec 2010, 5:00 am by Chelsey Russell
On August 8, 2010, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding in Miller v. [read post]
15 Aug 2016, 7:54 am by Steven Koprince
As demonstrated by a recent GAO bid protest decision, if one of the parties to the GSA CTA doesn’t hold the relevant FSS contract, the CTA may be found ineligible for award of an order under that contract. [read post]
17 Oct 2012, 10:50 am by WIMS
The consolidated petitions for review challenge a contract between the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and one of its long-time customers, Alcoa Inc. [read post]
24 Apr 2015, 1:23 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
In the case, Info-Hold, Inc., the owner of U.S. [read post]
10 Feb 2011, 10:42 am by Matt C. Bailey
Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc., __ Cal.4th__ (2011), holding that a retailer’s practice of requesting and recording a consumer’s zip code during a credit card transaction violates Cal. [read post]
3 Dec 2010, 6:15 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
Louis Post-Dispatch writes:Square Inc. and McKelvey filed a federal lawsuit Dec. 1 in the Eastern District of Missouri against REM Holdings 3 LLC. [read post]
1 Jun 2016, 1:25 am by Peter Reap
Peter ReapCCHThe federal district court in Houston did not abuse its discretion in enforcing a forum selection clause between Wellogix, on one side, and SAP America, Inc. and SAP AG (collectively, “SAP”) on the other, in holding that trade secret claims brought by Wellogix against SAP were required to be dismissed because they were subject to a mandatory and enforceable German forum selection clause in the parties’ agreement, the U.S. [read post]