Search for: "Time Warner Cable Inc." Results 21 - 40 of 217
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Oct 2019, 9:44 am by Dennis Crouch
Barry, No. 19-414 (when is a process-invention “ready for patenting” so that a public use or offer to sell would create a bar to patentability) Time Warner Cable, Inc., et al. v. [read post]
26 Sep 2019, 12:16 pm by Florian Mueller
A district court--affirmed by the Federal Circuit--found that Time Warner infringed a Sprint patent on connections between VoIP and pre-VoIP-era telecommunications networks, and awarded $140 million in damages, based on a reasonable-royalties theory that Time Warner argues failed to apportion between infringing and non-infringing features. [read post]
20 Sep 2019, 7:00 am by Andrew Hamm
Time Warner Cable Inc. v. [read post]
22 Aug 2019, 2:00 am by DONALD SCARINCI
., a private nonprofit corporation designated by New York City to operate public access channels on the Time Warner-owned Manhattan cable system, is not a state actor subject to the First Amendment. [read post]
6 May 2019, 7:53 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Rebecca Tushnet, Harvard Law School, On PufferyPuffery is a concept that purports to be about things consumers ignore and don’t rely on. [read post]
31 Dec 2018, 8:17 am by Eric Goldman
Time Warner Cable, the “Seventh Circuit has definitively held that retention of an individual’s private information, on its own, is not a concrete injury sufficient to satisfy Article III. [read post]
30 Dec 2018, 3:03 am by Ben
2018 was another busy busy year in the world of copyright, and a continuing global 'theme' was the ongoing battle between 'big tech' and 'big content', with the likes of Google and YouTube continuing to lobby extensively against planned reforms, bringing onboard (some) of the creative community - whilst the  'big content' (including film companies, music companies, the games sector and television) rolled out other creators - and finally seemed to be… [read post]
5 Oct 2018, 12:40 pm by Leila Wozniak
Time Warner Cable Inc., the Second Circuit determined that qualification as an ATDS was limited to those devices that were “capable at the time of use” of performing the functions of an autodialer, absent any modifications to the device’s hardware or software. 849 F.3d 473, 476–77 (2d Cir. 2018). [read post]
5 Sep 2018, 7:00 am by Joy Waltemath
Time Warner Cable, Inc., which involved “an injury functionally indistinguishable from” those supporting the applicant’s notice claim. [read post]
15 Aug 2018, 6:02 am
Ultimately, 86% of Charter stock not affiliated with Liberty voted, in a single vote, to approve (i) the share issuances and the voting agreement, (ii) the merger with Time Warner Cable and (iii) the purchase of Bright House. [read post]