Search for: "MOBIL OIL CORP."
Results 241 - 260
of 374
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Mar 2011, 10:04 am
Celotex Corp., Phila. [read post]
10 Mar 2011, 3:02 pm
Rowe v Fisher, 2011 NY Slip Op 01721 (1st Dept. 2011) “The motion court properly precluded plaintiffs’ expert testimony on chelation because the expert’s theories were contrary to the medical literature on the subject and therefore “unreliable” (Parker v Mobile Oil Corp., 7 NY3d 434, 447 [2006]). [read post]
4 Mar 2011, 7:29 am
***Of the Exxon case-->In Johnson & Johnston: Disclosed, Never Claimed, Public Domain, (IPT, p. 44 (May 2002)), LBE wroteOn April 11, [2002] the Associated Press reported that the federalgovernment has admitted infringing an Exxon Mobil Corp. petroleum patent and agreed to pay the oil company $ 2,583. [read post]
2 Mar 2011, 10:53 pm
The Seventh Circuit more recently addressed the issue in Cunningham Charter Corp. v. [read post]
1 Feb 2011, 4:07 am
Snapple Beverage Corp., No. [read post]
31 Jan 2011, 9:12 pm
T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed. [read post]
28 Jan 2011, 7:38 am
Penny Corp. [read post]
28 Dec 2010, 7:05 am
Anadarko Petroleum, Corp., 2010 WL 4644049 (S.D. [read post]
3 Dec 2010, 8:58 pm
., (ERI), third-party plaintiff Unocal Corp, cross-claimant Union Oil of California and their corporate parent Chevron Corp. [read post]
12 Nov 2010, 6:43 am
Exxon Mobil Corp. et al., a “legacy” lawsuit involving damage to property located in St. [read post]
12 Nov 2010, 6:43 am
Exxon Mobil Corp., a “legacy” lawsuit involving damage to property located in St. [read post]
12 Nov 2010, 6:43 am
Exxon Mobil Corp., a “legacy” lawsuit involving damage to property located in St. [read post]
11 Nov 2010, 6:05 am
Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989)). [read post]
18 Oct 2010, 9:35 am
Army Corps of Engineers in the spring of 2008. [read post]
18 Oct 2010, 9:35 am
Army Corps of Engineers in the spring of 2008. [read post]
18 Oct 2010, 9:35 am
Army Corps of Engineers in the spring of 2008. [read post]
13 Oct 2010, 12:00 pm
The royalty amount assumes that the party would still be able to make a reasonable profit by selling the article in the open market.[5] Generally, the determination of a reasonable royalty for accused patent infringement applies the well-established factors set forth in Georgia Pacific Corp. v. [read post]
24 Sep 2010, 1:22 pm
Patent No. 6,907,530 owned by SSL Services LLC and entitled SECURE INTERNET APPLICATIONS WITH MOBILE CODE. [read post]
15 Sep 2010, 4:01 pm
According to Greenwire, While some companies are supporting Proposition 23, Shell Oil Co. opposes it, Chevron Corp. is officially neutral, Exxon Mobil Corp. and BP PLC have decided not to get involved and ConocoPhillips has yet to contribute. [read post]
13 Sep 2010, 8:43 am
September 13, 2010, Volume 2, Number 26 The following is a summary review of articles from all over the nation concerning environmental law settlements, decisions, regulatory actions and lawsuits filed during the past week. [read post]
