Search for: "Koh v. United States"
Results 181 - 200
of 350
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Jul 2014, 12:32 pm
Two weeks after the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its opinion in Alice v. [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 11:49 am
E.g., Hill v. [read post]
23 May 2014, 11:47 pm
After the original version of the Apple v. [read post]
2 May 2014, 1:09 pm
The Apple v. [read post]
30 Apr 2014, 8:37 am
Reexaminations by the United States Patent and Trademark Office do, however, result in plenty of publicly-accessible documents, and since I reported on those issues here on this blog, one didn't have to go the USPTO's Public Pair (Patent Application Information Retrieval) web portal to find out about this. [read post]
27 Apr 2014, 6:05 am
This is a mess of CLS Bank v. [read post]
Copying is all that Samsung needs to do in order to work around four of Apple's five patents-in-suit
26 Apr 2014, 7:53 am
But past infringement findings are not the name of the strategy game.The whole Apple v. [read post]
25 Apr 2014, 8:49 am
There's an amazing development with respect to the ongoing Apple v. [read post]
17 Apr 2014, 11:12 pm
The Apple v. [read post]
4 Apr 2014, 10:43 pm
I recommend to the people I know in the Apple fan community who would like to see draconian remedies imposed on Samsung for Apple's competitive gain beyond what is warranted by its inventive contributions to the state of the art (I just borrowed language from a Federal Circuit ruling recently quoted by Judge Koh in Apple v. [read post]
3 Apr 2014, 12:38 am
But patents protect only an inventive contribution to the state of the art. [read post]
30 Mar 2014, 9:10 pm
(I see a fairly high likelihood of a post-appeal retrial anyway when I compare the damages theories allowed by Judge Koh to what the highest-ranking U.S. patent judge, Chief Judge Randall Rader of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, said on September 11, 2013 about a Motorola damages claim against Apple. [read post]
29 Mar 2014, 2:49 am
I'm not going to do the usual preview post listing patents, products etc. before the trial in the second Apple v. [read post]
11 Mar 2014, 11:12 pm
No. 3015), to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit".A notice of appeal always has the broadest scope, but in a complex case like this, appellants typically later focus on a limited number of key issues. [read post]
10 Mar 2014, 1:34 pm
The Supreme Court, in 1992’s United States v. [read post]
6 Mar 2014, 8:17 pm
The next Apple v. [read post]
6 Mar 2014, 12:50 am
Early (shortly after midnight) on Thursday, Judge Lucy Koh of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California somewhat surprisingly denied a renewed motion for a permanent injunction against Samsung that Apple had filed in December about a month after an appeals court had remanded a previously-denied injunction bid to the district court. [read post]
8 Feb 2014, 12:00 am
"Apple v. [read post]
7 Feb 2014, 8:38 pm
Judge Koh's order states that this was "troubling". [read post]
4 Feb 2014, 8:17 pm
On Monday I explained in detail (in connection with injunction proceedings relating to the first California Apple v. [read post]
