Search for: "INVITROGEN V CLONTECH LABS" Results 1 - 20 of 26
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Aug 2021, 2:53 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
Clontech Labs., Inc., 429 F.3d 1052, 1064 (Fed. [read post]
7 Sep 2012, 7:04 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
Clontech Labs., Inc., 429 F.3d 1052, 1080 (Fed. [read post]
19 May 2011, 2:20 pm by Steven Boutwell
Bon Tool, 590 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed.Cir.2009). (7)  Clontech Labs. [read post]
1 Apr 2011, 5:17 pm
Clontech Labs., Inc., 429 F.3d 1052, 1072-73 (Fed. [read post]
4 Mar 2011, 2:48 am by R. David Donoghue
The Court also held that the fact that RESTASIS was marked with an unexpired patent, did not insulate Allergan from marking with an expired patent as well, citing Clontech Labs., Inc. v. [read post]
21 Dec 2010, 11:36 pm
Clontech Labs., Inc., 429 F.3d 1052, 1078 (Fed. [read post]
21 Dec 2010, 10:07 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
Clontech Labs., Inc., 429 F.3d 1052, 1078 (Fed. [read post]
1 Sep 2010, 9:10 pm
Stauffer separately argues that, according to this court's decision in Clontech Labs., Inc. v. [read post]
9 Aug 2010, 11:46 am by Stefanie Levine
However, the government’s attorney contended that in view of past precedent such as Clontech Labs., Inc. v. [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 6:12 am by The Docket Navigator
Del. 2010)] declined to draw an inference of deceptive intent from pleadings that the defendant knowingly marked certain articles with an expired patent number, this ruling departs from [Clontech Labs. [read post]
15 Jun 2010, 2:38 pm by Eric Guttag
”  Pivotal to this aspect of false patent marking was the 2005 Federal Circuit case of Clontech Labs., Inc. v. [read post]