Search for: "Georgia Pacific Corp. v. Cross"
Results 1 - 20
of 25
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Apr 2017, 5:15 pm
An alternative approach that avoids these problems is the one developed by Judge James Robart in Microsoft Corp. v. [read post]
2 Mar 2017, 9:34 am
Mobil Oil Corp., 7 N.Y.3d 434 (2006), and Cornell v. 360 W. 51st St. [read post]
14 Jul 2016, 10:09 am
Royalties can be considered from the standpoint of a hypothetical negotiation guided by the 15 factors listed in Georgia-Pacific Corp v US Plywood Corp, 318 F Supp 1116, 1120 (SDNY 1970). [read post]
19 Feb 2016, 11:57 am
Lockheed-Martin Corp., ___ F.3d ___, No. 14‐4083, slip op. (2d Cir. [read post]
7 Dec 2015, 10:24 am
In the case, the District Court determined a “reasonable royalty” using the well-known framework established in Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. [read post]
18 Jul 2014, 11:19 am
Georgia-Pacific Corp., No. 10-0775 (Texas 7/11/14). [read post]
24 Sep 2013, 7:05 pm
Georgia Pacific Consumer Products, LP 13-41Issue: Whether the court of appeals erred in refusing to follow the holdings of the Eighth and Sixth Circuits involving identical trademark litigation and not giving those rulings preclusive effect – and doing so in ways that disregard the district courts’ inherent authority to consider preclusion and do serious violence to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 and the proper standards other circuits routinely follow when… [read post]
8 Aug 2013, 6:22 am
As such, the judge entered a cross-claim judgment against Georgia-Pacific, to be paid to Ford. [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 6:00 am
Georgia Pacific Corp., in which the Eleventh Circuit reasoned that if it were to hold the entire facility covered, irrespective of what the employer does at different areas therein, it would effectively be writing out of the statute the requirement that the adjoining area “be customarily used by an employer in loading, unloading, repairing, dismantling, or building a vessel. [read post]
5 Jul 2012, 2:52 am
Reasonable royalty analysis (Georgia-Pacific factors) Lucent v. [read post]
3 Nov 2011, 9:12 pm
AnimalFeeds International Corp.; and AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
5 Jan 2011, 7:52 am
Uniloc USA, Inc. v. [read post]
4 Jan 2011, 4:08 pm
Finisar Corp. v. [read post]
4 Jan 2011, 11:53 am
Microsoft Corp. [read post]
6 Dec 2010, 2:36 am
Maersk Contractrors USA, Inc (IP Law Blog) US Patents – Lawsuits and strategic steps Columbia University’s School for Engineering and Applied Science – Columbia’s patented smart grid technology to power FedEx’s NYC EV Fleet (Green Patent Blog) Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products – ALJ Gildea grants motion to terminate investigation in Certain Electronic Paper Towel Dispensing Devices (337-TA-718) based on consent order (ITC Law Blog) GS Cleantech… [read post]
7 Sep 2010, 9:24 am
Click Here DECISIONS Arkema, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Aug 2010, 2:30 am
The Lear Corp. [read post]
28 Apr 2010, 1:18 pm
Georgia-Pacific Corp. [read post]
9 Feb 2010, 8:38 am
David, a qualified economist with experience in the field, followed the traditional application of the Georgia-Pacific factors, see Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. [read post]
24 Dec 2009, 8:02 pm
The CAFC cited Georgia-Pacific:To support his royalty calculation, Wagner adjusted the baseline royalty rate of ($96) using the factors set out in Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. [read post]
