Search for: "Samsung Electronics Company, Limited"
Results 81 - 100
of 263
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Jun 2016, 6:40 am
Briefing: Samsung Electronics Co. v. [read post]
20 May 2016, 11:02 am
As General Counsel and Executive Vice President, Business Development, of Franklin Electronic Publishers Inc., Greg served in many roles for a multinational consumer electronics company based in New Jersey, including heading up business development and directing research and development (R&D) in creating one of the world’s first handheld e-book readers. [read post]
18 May 2016, 8:19 am
Briefing: Samsung Electronics Co. v. [read post]
12 May 2016, 6:14 pm
Griswold is a Consultant residing in Hudson, WI and was formerly President of and Chief Intellectual Property Counsel for 3M Innovative Properties Company. [read post]
3 May 2016, 1:42 am
Lee, No. 15-446 (BRI construction in IPRs; institution decisions unreviewable) Samsung Electronics Co. v. [read post]
18 Apr 2016, 9:58 am
Lee, No. 15-446 (BRI construction in IPRs; institution decisions unreviewable) Samsung Electronics Co. v. [read post]
14 Apr 2016, 7:45 am
The license scope is also limited in similarly nuanced ways. [read post]
4 Apr 2016, 9:59 am
On Monday, March 21, 2016, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the matter of Samsung Electronics v. [read post]
2 Apr 2016, 12:20 pm
The Federal Circuit has sought to limit large awards on small inventions by putting evidentiary limits on permissible arguments "using the entire market value". [read post]
1 Apr 2016, 8:22 am
Lee, No. 15-446 (BRI construction in IPRs; institution decisions unreviewable) Samsung Electronics Co. v. [read post]
21 Mar 2016, 12:07 pm
The South Korean electronics giant, Samsung, had raised two issues in its appeal — just what Apple’s design patent should include in its protection, and the amount of a company’s profits from a device that partly infringed another’s patent that should be awarded as a remedy for the infringement. [read post]
21 Mar 2016, 8:08 am
**For a popular account of the cert decision, see USAToday:http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/03/21/supreme-court-weigh-samsung-apple-patent-battle/82070316/** FossPatents had previously noted as to the Samsung getting cert:The fact that Samsung's petition is certworthy has been confirmed by two recent posts on key IP blogs:•The SCOTUSblog's Relist Watch:"The big new relist this week is Samsung Electronics Co. v. [read post]
21 Mar 2016, 6:33 am
Apple received limited support for its position on damages--nowhere near the level of Samsung's support, but some support--in 2014 before the Federal Circuit. [read post]
2 Feb 2016, 7:58 am
The term “things,” while not limiting in and of itself, is vague at best. [read post]
22 Jan 2016, 9:42 am
These complex products, which have become the norm throughout the consumer electronics industry, are not purchased primarily based on the design of one or more isolated components. [read post]
20 Jan 2016, 8:00 am
Petitions for Writ of Certiorari Pending: Design Patents: Samsung Electronics Co. v. [read post]
19 Jan 2016, 8:20 am
Law Professor Brief: [SamsungLemley] In a petition primarily drafted by Professors Mark Lemley and Mark McKenna, and filed by Lemley, a group of 37 law professors strongly support Samsung’s position that design patent rights should be severely limited. [read post]
30 Nov 2015, 6:11 am
Recent terrorist attacks and resulting questions about the limits of surveillance have rekindled debate about how governments should deal with the challenges of powerful, commercially available encryption. [read post]
25 Nov 2015, 6:47 am
What happens if an unconditional limitation application is now made before the appeal is over is not clear to this Kat - something similar happened in Samsung Electronics Co LTD v Apple Retail UK LTD & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 250 (reported by IPKat here), which made it clear that the central limitation route was permissible, but left it open to the Court of Appeal, once the limitation proceedings were concluded, to decide that the appeal… [read post]
5 Nov 2015, 1:16 pm
With an unusually strong dissent, Federal Circuit Chief Judge Sharon Prost practically invited Samsung to request a rehearing en banc (full-court review) of a 2-1 decision that would, unless overturned, pave the way for a permanent injunction for Apple against Samsung over patents covering limited aspects of some of countless smartphone features. [read post]
