Search for: "Qualcomm Inc."
Results 201 - 220
of 530
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 May 2016, 8:19 am
Qualcomm Incorporated, No. 15-1092 (“Whether and under what circumstances an inconsistency in expert testimony permits a court to set aside a jury verdict and grant the losing party judgment as a matter of law. [read post]
3 May 2016, 1:42 am
Qualcomm Incorporated, No. 15-1092 (“Whether and under what circumstances an inconsistency in expert testimony permits a court to set aside a jury verdict and grant the losing party judgment as a matter of law. [read post]
29 Apr 2016, 4:00 am
Qualcomm, Inc. [read post]
29 Apr 2016, 4:00 am
Qualcomm, Inc. [read post]
18 Apr 2016, 9:58 am
USA, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Apr 2016, 7:45 am
Emphasizing this point, Qualcomm recently published on its website that “fragmentation is the enemy of IoT. [read post]
1 Apr 2016, 8:22 am
Qualcomm Incorporated, No. 15-1092 (“Whether and under what circumstances an inconsistency in expert testimony permits a court to set aside a jury ve [read post]
24 Mar 2016, 8:00 pm
Qualcomm, Inc. 15-1092 Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioners in this case. [read post]
17 Mar 2016, 2:45 am
Qualcomm Incorporated, No. 15-1092 (“Whether and under what circumstances an inconsistency in expert testimony permits a court to set aside a jury verdict and grant the losing party judgment as a matter of law. [read post]
4 Mar 2016, 12:25 pm
Qualcomm (when should a court reject a jury’s determination that an expert is credible); and WesternGeco v. [read post]
27 Jan 2016, 11:22 am
High-Tech Inst., 559 F.3d 874, 878 (8th Cir. 2009); Qualcomm Inc. v. [read post]
27 Jan 2016, 11:22 am
High-Tech Inst., 559 F.3d 874, 878 (8th Cir. 2009); Qualcomm Inc. v. [read post]
25 Jan 2016, 5:01 pm
It doesn't take long to identify quite a clear difference of opinion between at least three panelists (who have been faced with troll litigation) and Qualcomm on the issue (see article by Laurie Self on patent reform here and from Qualcomm's General Counsel in the New York Times here ). [read post]
23 Nov 2015, 5:12 pm
Joseph P. [read post]
5 Nov 2015, 5:13 pm
This happened in Qualcomm, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Oct 2015, 10:00 pm
Qualcomm, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of R+L’s infringement claims against Qualcomm, finding that the claims issued after reexamination were not “substantially identical” to the original claims. [read post]
5 Oct 2015, 10:00 pm
Qualcomm, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of R+L’s infringement claims against Qualcomm, finding that the claims issued after reexamination were not “substantially identical” to the original claims. [read post]
21 Sep 2015, 9:59 pm
Be Wary of Claim Amendments During Reexamination By Joseph Herndon -- Traditional patent law holds that a patentee of a patent that survives reexamination is only entitled to infringement damages for the time period between the date of issuance of the original claims and the date of issuance of the reexamined claims if the original and the reexamined claims are "substantially identical. [read post]
18 Sep 2015, 11:47 am
(“R+L”) brought suit against, interalia, Qualcomm, Inc. [read post]
1 Sep 2015, 7:27 am
By Matthew Garza, J.D.Members of the board of directors of mobile technology company QualComm, Inc. were victorious in a legal battle launched by an investor over amendments made by the company’s compensation committee to increase stock options granted to the directors in 2010 and 2011. [read post]
