Search for: "Qimonda AG"
Results 1 - 17
of 17
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Jan 2011, 3:40 pm
On January 14, 2011, the Federal Circuit is scheduled to hear oral argument in Qimonda AG v. [read post]
18 Jan 2011, 3:33 pm
R. 36 judgment affirming the ITC in Qimonda AG v. [read post]
10 Dec 2013, 6:41 am
More than four years ago, as I reported back at the time, the Bankruptcy Court in the Chapter 15 cross-border bankruptcy case of Qimonda AG issued its first decision on the application of Section 365(n) in that case. [read post]
16 Jul 2009, 12:24 am
A post titled Patent Perishables at ipeg goes into "what happens to IP" when a company faces bankruptcy, illustrating with the company Qimonda AG, Germany's DRAM made as (sort of) an example. [read post]
10 Dec 2013, 9:41 am
More than four years ago, as I reported back at the time, the Bankruptcy Court in the Chapter 15 cross-border bankruptcy case of Qimonda AG issued its first decision on the application of Section 365(n) in that case. [read post]
30 Aug 2010, 7:35 pm
Qimonda AG (Qimonda), a producer of Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) chips, also holds a portfolio of approximately 12,000 patents. [read post]
19 Jan 2010, 7:28 am
In response, Qimonda AG's foreign representative, who had brought the Chapter 15 case in the first place, filed a motion in the U.S. [read post]
15 Dec 2011, 1:29 pm
Image via Wikipedia Nearly 16 months ago, this blog covered the story of Qimonda AG – a German chip manufacturer whose cross-border liquidation created waves on both sides of the Atlantic. [read post]
1 Feb 2010, 4:58 pm
By way of background, and as explained in our October 19, 2009 post, the Complainant in this investigation is Qimonda AG (“Qimonda”) and the Respondents are LSI Corporation, Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Memory Products (US) Corporation, Seagate Technologies International (Singapore), and Seagate (US) LLC (collectively “Respondents”). [read post]
8 Mar 2010, 4:09 pm
By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Qimonda AG (“Qimonda”) and the Respondents are LSI Corporation, Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Memory Products (US) Corporation, and Seagate (US) LLC (collectively, “Respondents”). [read post]
19 Oct 2009, 8:54 am
The Complainant in this investigation is Qimonda AG ("Qimonda") and the Respondents are LSI Corporation, Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Memory Products (US) Corporation, Seagate Technologies International (Singapore), and Seagate (US) LLC (collectively "Respondents"). [read post]
12 Nov 2009, 6:59 am
The Complainant in this investigation is Qimonda AG and the Respondents are LSI Corporation, Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Memory Products (US) Corporation, Seagate Technologies International (Singapore), and Seagate (US) LLC (collectively “Respondentsâ€). [read post]
17 Dec 2013, 7:35 am
It would also address the interplay between Section 365(n) and Chapter 15 cross-border bankruptcy cases, the subject of my last post, on the Qimonda AG decision from the U.S. [read post]
29 Jan 2010, 2:24 pm
., Jazz Semiconductor, Qimonda AG, Powerchip Semiconductor Corporation, Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation, Integrated Device Technology, Inc., Spansion, Inc., and Nanya Technology Corporation (collectively, “Respondents”). [read post]
2 Feb 2010, 9:36 am
(“Tower”), Jazz Semiconductor (“Jazz”), Qimonda AG, Powerchip Semiconductor Corporation (“Powerchip”), Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation (“Grace”), Integrated Device Technology, Inc. [read post]
27 Mar 2009, 7:20 am
(Ip's What's Up) Africa New US Trade Representative - Afro implications (Afro-IP) Argentina Official collective management organisation for film directors (IP tango) Asia An Asian perspective on the credit crunch (Managing Intellectual Property) Canada Scotch Whisky Association seeks leave to appeal FCA decision to the Supreme Court in trade mark battle over GLEN (Excess Copyright) China Third revision of China’s patent law… [read post]
21 Nov 2008, 1:36 pm
’ paper by Graeme Clark SC (IP Down Under) Full Federal Court decision concerning brand reputation in context of ‘lookalike’ products and famous brands: Hansen Beverage Company v Bickfords (Australia) Pty Ltd (Mallesons Stephen Jaques) Federal Court holds that grace period applicable to a ‘parent patent’ is different to that of its divisional ‘child’: Mont Adventure Equipment v Phoenix Leisure Group (IP Down Under) Design valid… [read post]
