Search for: "In re: AT&T Intellectual Property II"
Results 201 - 220
of 573
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Feb 2011, 7:29 am
Inventors who create innovative intellectual property like patents, trademarks and copyrights are told by their patent attorney or patent lawyer that they should protect their intellectual property rights and secure patent protection by doing a patent search and then file a patent application and a trademark application. [read post]
14 Jun 2019, 8:27 am
Title II of the MMA is the Classics Protection and Access Act, dealing with pre-72 sound recordings. [read post]
3 Apr 2007, 5:25 am
The fear: that forgetfulness is shifting over into intellectual property as well. [read post]
30 Oct 2009, 4:47 am
Meanwhile, the IPKat welcomes a new entrant to the IP blogosphere, Raymond Hegarty (left) of Intellectual Profit. [read post]
18 May 2012, 9:58 am
Don't read this if you're coming up for retirement, since the changes won't take effect till 2013/14 [katpat to Graham Titley for the link]. [read post]
1 Jun 2018, 2:50 pm
Is intellectual property receding as a lynchpin of economic order and power? [read post]
18 Dec 2007, 3:45 am
Must be an intellectual property thing, I figured. [read post]
19 May 2018, 12:09 pm
It is worth noting, however, that courts in other jurisdictions looked at international equivalents of those intellectual property rights (and at devices from the same generation of Android-based Samsung products) and reached rather different conclusions. [read post]
28 Jun 2018, 11:51 pm
(ii) Does the French [Republic] have any kind of prior intellectual property right [in] the word ‘France’, which is not the official name of the French State and is just a geographical entity? [read post]
21 Jan 2011, 7:56 am
You're that guy. [read post]
6 Nov 2009, 4:01 am
This piece, posted now so that interested parties can read it before the Court of Appeal, England and Wales, hears Nokia's appeal in the controversial decision of Nokia v HMCR (see here for IPKat note on the trial decision) can be accessed here.Paul Jurcys has emailed the IPKat with news of the New Draft of the Transparency Proposal on Jurisdiction, Choice of Law and Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Intellectual Property, which has just been made available… [read post]
30 May 2012, 9:06 am
Doesn't seem to be working too well for Europe or here in California. [read post]
1 May 2012, 7:35 am
I would add to this, especially if an author makes it to final board review just let them know why you decided to reject the article (this can be brief--this piece is not as clear/well-written/important as others, we already have too many intellectual property pieces, etc.) [read post]
8 Aug 2013, 9:36 am
A: they’re happy for it to remain illegal. [read post]
14 May 2012, 8:38 am
Only one correspondent -- the thoughtful Margaret Llewelyn -- has however picked up the intellectual property issue that immediately concerned this Kat, who is the proud owner of a Pudsey Bear lunch-box which Mrs Kat gave him as an anniversary present some years ago. [read post]
29 Apr 2013, 1:46 pm
I guess that's because she's very committed to accuracy and she recognized her error with respect to the Galaxy S II AT&T; she declined to find an error with respect to the Infuse 4G. [read post]
2 Aug 2009, 9:51 pm
Meanwhile: (i) if you have sent him a link to an item on the BBC or any popular news source, there's a good chance that lots of other people have done so too; (ii) if you have submitted an article for publication in the Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice and haven't heard whether it has been accepted or not, please remember that peer reviewers go on holiday too; (iii) the IPKat is not a law firm and can't give legal advice;… [read post]
17 Oct 2020, 9:29 am
The 164-member council on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights failed to reach consensus on the proposal. ... [read post]
16 Aug 2013, 7:17 pm
PRACTICE NOTE: Trade dress is becoming a more ubiquitous form of intellectual property claim. [read post]
4 Oct 2010, 11:02 pm
An employer’s decision not to use work performed and provided by an employee doesn’t automatically make that work the property of the employee. [read post]
