Search for: "House et al v. USA et al" Results 61 - 80 of 138
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Jun 2013, 9:35 am by Max Mallory
 The firm also represented Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company et al. as an amicus in support of the petitioner in FTC v. [read post]
5 Apr 2013, 6:18 am
Your Curmudgeon is currently in Quincy, Illinois, working with co-counsel to prepare for the upcoming trial, which starts next week, in the case of The Diocese of Quincy, et al. v. [read post]
8 Mar 2013, 8:07 am by assoulineberlowe
ArrivalStar S.A. et al, an entity mentioned in previous posts on ths blog, filed ten new patent infringement cases against defendants in the Southern District of Florida. [read post]
26 May 2012, 4:21 pm
Although the leadership of the Episcopal Church (USA) may treat it as one of its member Dioceses, it has done so only to enable it to become a plaintiff in court as soon as possible. [read post]
21 May 2012, 2:15 pm by Matthew Bush
Certiorari stage documents:Opinion below (9th Cir.)Petition for certiorariBrief in oppositionAmicus brief of Los Angeles County Police Chiefs' Association et al. [read post]
19 Mar 2012, 10:00 pm by Stephanie Figueroa
  The ‘161 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled Nuance Communications, Inc. v ABBYY USA Software House, Inc., et al, Case Nos. 08-0212-JSW, 08-04227-HJSW, 08-04942 (N.D. [read post]
19 Mar 2012, 10:00 pm by Stephanie Figueroa
  The ‘161 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled Nuance Communications, Inc. v ABBYY USA Software House, Inc., et al, Case Nos. 08-0212-JSW, 08-04227-HJSW, 08-04942 (N.D. [read post]
29 Nov 2011, 1:20 am by Webmaster
Google: Judge Appoints a Damages Expert  In the Oracle v. [read post]
21 Oct 2011, 1:31 pm by SteinMcewen, LLP
Microsoft et al.[25]   In Motionless Keyboard, the inventor of a new keyboard showed his keyboard to investors, a friend, a business partner  and a typist prior to filing an application. [read post]
29 Aug 2011, 4:42 am by Marie Louise
World Pac Int’l AG (Chicago IP Litigation Blog) District Court N D Illinois: Dependent claim is not invalid under § 112 ¶ 4 merely because it recites only structural limitations of independent method claim: McDavid Knee Guard, Inc., et. al. v. [read post]