Search for: "L-3 COMMUNICATIONS CORP"
Results 101 - 120
of 951
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Jul 2008, 11:24 am
$1,557,116Kathleen Karelis L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc [read post]
6 Dec 2016, 9:43 am
The case was a fairly typical employment-related trade secret dispute, which arose when two employees of Engility - a former division of L-3 Communications - left to form their own business. [read post]
28 Jan 2010, 3:40 am
Here, in Stonewell Corp. v. [read post]
11 Nov 2014, 9:22 pm
Int’l Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 702 (Fed. [read post]
5 Jan 2011, 7:24 am
Sony Attack On L-3 Communications Patents, Among Reexamination Requests Filed Week Of December 27th The most commercially significant reexamination requests last week may be Sony's filings against two L-3 Communications patents, following that company's suit against Sony for infringement (see ex parte Request Nos. (6) & (7)). [read post]
5 Jan 2011, 7:24 am
Sony Attack On L-3 Communications Patents, Among Reexamination Requests Filed Week Of December 27th The most commercially significant reexamination requests last week may be Sony's filings against two L-3 Communications patents, following that company's suit against Sony for infringement (see ex parte Request Nos. (6) & (7)). [read post]
26 Jul 2017, 8:30 am
(ECF No. 11, ¶ 3). [read post]
26 May 2015, 8:24 pm
L-5972-11 (Super. [read post]
7 Jan 2010, 2:44 pm
Also to watch: L-3 Communications Corp. [read post]
8 Sep 2020, 9:39 am
Experienced Whistleblower Attorneys Managing partner Scott L. [read post]
21 Jun 2022, 6:30 am
[3] Sanford Levinson, Law as Literature, 60 TEX. [read post]
18 Feb 2020, 4:11 am
"Accordingly, Opposer has established the necessary relationship to New Cingular such that it 'can reasonably believe that damage to the subsidiary will naturally lead to financial injury to itself,'" and opposer thus proven that it has standing to pursue its false connection claim under Section 2(a).The Board then set a schedule for discovery and trial of the substantive issues in the case.Read comments and post your comment here.TTABlog comment: Now AT&T has to prove its… [read post]
9 Mar 2010, 4:05 am
Ct. 227, 9 L. [read post]
24 May 2013, 5:13 am
Realty Corp., 138 N.J. 326, 650 A.2d 757 (New Jersey Supreme Court 1994). . . . [read post]
20 May 2019, 9:18 am
April 29, 2019). [2] Sawyer at *36. [3] Sawyer at *36 (quoting Willis v. [read post]
22 Jul 2010, 12:00 am
L. [read post]
18 Feb 2016, 2:31 pm
Corp. v. [read post]
18 Jan 2015, 7:42 am
Office & Prof'l Emps. [read post]
29 Nov 2009, 3:57 pm
Schwimmer, 892 F.2d 237, 245 (2nd Cir. 1989) [2] Id. [3] U.S. v. [read post]
27 Jul 2020, 4:10 pm
Synutra Int’l Inc.[8] that the board must establish these conditions before substantive negotiations on the economic terms begin. [read post]
