Search for: "US v. Coats"
Results 181 - 200
of 1,074
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Jul 2010, 5:25 am
To view a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Matter of L&L Painting Co., Inc. v. [read post]
15 Apr 2022, 4:40 am
Oakley, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Aug 2020, 2:06 am
Rather, in their view, Quake taught coating the microchannels with a fluorinated oil and using fluorinated surfactants in the carrier fluid. [read post]
23 Sep 2019, 6:57 am
In Zervos v. [read post]
7 Sep 2010, 11:06 am
LLC v. [read post]
4 Jun 2019, 4:12 am
In Nuvo Pharmaceuticals, In. v. [read post]
14 Dec 2017, 11:28 am
Virginia Citizens Consumer Council Inc. to Zauderer v. [read post]
1 Sep 2011, 2:06 pm
Festo Corp. v. [read post]
10 Apr 2013, 12:00 am
· In Dawson v. [read post]
New EBA referral: When is prior use of a product excluded from the prior art for lack of enablement?
30 Jun 2023, 12:57 am
The patent relates to polymers for coating and protecting solar cells in solar panels. [read post]
29 Jan 2024, 8:51 pm
We fought a Revolution against the Red Coats, clearly marked British soldiers. [read post]
18 Jun 2009, 1:46 am
Art.5(1)(a) is wider than Art.5(1)(b) [thus confusion isn't required] and while descriptive use, e.g. [read post]
18 Apr 2008, 5:00 am
" Nasalok Coating Corp. v. [read post]
4 Jun 2017, 6:30 am
Knauff v. [read post]
16 Jul 2008, 7:00 am
Lee Co. v. [read post]
2 Nov 2018, 2:44 am
Applicant pointed to five other entities using "29" as part of a mark].In re 8415927 Canada, Inc., Serial Nos. 87056710 and 87056720 (October 25, 2018) [not precedential] (Opinion by Cindy R. [read post]
16 Jul 2015, 6:54 am
" Finjan, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 10:17 am
Under Caraco, use codes must coincide with patent scope In Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. v. [read post]
27 Mar 2019, 5:28 am
The patent The relevant patent claims relate to the use of a given dosage unit of tadalafil (1-5mg), up to a maximum dose of 5mg per day, for use in sexual dysfunction (the claims are in both EPC 2000 format (a purpose-limited product claim) and in Swiss-form (a purpose-limited process claim)). [read post]
6 Oct 2008, 3:38 am
Proctor & Gamble Co. et al. v. [read post]
