Search for: "INTER CONSTRUCTION LLC" Results 101 - 120 of 346
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Oct 2018, 4:40 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
  Many of the construction legal malpractice cases arise from water damages, as does this one. [read post]
22 Aug 2018, 8:25 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
In an inter partes review requested byClearCorrect Operating, LLC, the Patent Trial and AppealBoard determined that claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 areunpatentable. [read post]
1 Jul 2018, 10:00 pm
Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, that the Inter Partes Review proceedings, commonly referred to as IPRs, do not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment of the U.S. [read post]
9 May 2018, 10:00 pm
The USPTO proposes changes to the claim construction standard for interpreting claims in inter partes review (“IPR”), post-grant review (“PGR”), and for covered business method patents (“CBM”) proceedings before the PTAB. [read post]
9 May 2018, 9:59 pm by Patent Docs
Reg. 21221) today which would provide a change to the claim construction standard used in Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs), Post-Grant Proceedings (PGRs), and Covered Business Method Reviews (CBMs). [read post]
9 May 2018, 9:40 am by John Elwood
Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, involving the constitutionality of inter partes review. [read post]
7 May 2018, 10:25 pm by Wolfgang Demino
 at ¶ 16)In 2014, the owners of the beneficial interests in the Trusts were an affiliate of Citibank named SL Resid Holdings, LLC ("Citibank';) and NC Owners, LLC ("NC Owners") (collectively, the "Owners"). [read post]
25 Apr 2018, 1:54 pm by Eric Caligiuri
GREENE’S ENERGY GROUP, LLC that inter partes review does not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution. [read post]
5 Mar 2018, 11:59 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
Appellant Knowles Electronics, LLC (“Knowles”) appealsthe inter partes reexamination decision on appeal ofthe U.S. [read post]
16 Feb 2018, 8:26 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
The fact that the phrase “average discharge current”is only used in the portion of the specification describingan “example” of embodiments that undisputedlydischarge current at levels that swing above and below 20amps shows that the word “average” should take on itsordinary meaning, especially given the Board’s obligationto use the broadest reasonable construction in IPRs.Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. [read post]
14 Jan 2018, 1:37 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
Nebraska did not fare well at the CAFC, which began its opinion:Exmark Manufacturing Company filed suit againstBriggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC in theUnited States District Court for the District of Nebraska,alleging infringement of, inter alia, claim 1 of U.S. [read post]