Search for: "USA v. GRANT" Results 2341 - 2360 of 3,248
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Mar 2008, 8:19 am
   Specifically, the question is, what does the Court of Appeal do when the US Supremes tells it to re-analyze a $55 million punitive damages award, already reduced twice, in light of Philip-Morris USA v. [read post]
5 Sep 2018, 4:51 pm by Howard Knopf
Indeed, there’s a recent very important decision in the USA – which though not binding in Canada – could be very influential. [read post]
28 Sep 2020, 4:39 pm by Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle
That case, GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS v Outokumpu Steamless USA, LLC, stems from a 2007 contract between a contractor and steel manufacturer for the construction of mills in the manufacturer’s steel plant. [read post]
9 Jun 2009, 9:02 pm
” “I represented the defendant Lozza SpA in this trademark infringement abandonment, unfair competition, breach of contract, and rescission action [Fratelli Lozza (USA) Inc. v. [read post]
10 Oct 2013, 9:07 pm by Lyle Denniston
  The subsidiary is Mercedes-Benz USA. [read post]
17 Jun 2011, 2:54 am by Marie Louise
Crowdsourcing commercialised (IPKat) P2P (seminar): the aftermath (IPKat) Hargreaves Review (Kluwer Patent Blog)   United States US Patents Microsoft joins Article One’s new preemptive troll-fighting service (The Prior Art)   US Patents – Decisions Supreme Court affirms high standard of proving patents invalid – Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership (Electronic Frontier Foundation) (Patent Arcade) (Patently-O)  (IPBiz) (IAM) (IPBiz) (Patentology)… [read post]
25 Nov 2015, 4:56 am by Amy Howe
” In just under two weeks, the Court will hear oral arguments in Evenwel v. [read post]
4 Oct 2018, 4:09 am by Edith Roberts
” Yesterday the justices heard argument in Knick v. [read post]
6 Apr 2010, 3:53 pm by Eric Schweibenz
  On March 3, 2010, ALJ Essex issued Order No. 6, which granted, on the basis of claim preclusion, Complainant Paice LLC’s (“Paice”) motion for summary determination of infringement, validity and enforceability, and denied Respondents Toyota Motor Corp., Toyota Motor North America, and Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. [read post]