Search for: "US v. Summer Smith" Results 241 - 260 of 427
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 May 2011, 2:20 am by Kelly
Advising inventors, their spouses, and their start-up companies: James Joyce v Armstrong Teasdale (Patently-O) District Court N D California: Use of patent reexamination evidence in parallel litigation: Volterra Semiconductor Corporation v Primarion Inc (Patents Post-Grant) District Court E D California: Government’s approval of false marking settlement precludes later challenge that settlement was “staged” and therefore lacks preclusive effect: Champion… [read post]
15 Jun 2007, 12:55 am
ALM Privacy Policy / Contact Us © 2007 ALM Properties, Inc. [read post]
10 Jul 2020, 4:11 am by James Romoser
Sineneng-Smith, which the court decided in May. [read post]
16 Mar 2008, 8:07 pm
That's a kick in the stomach; but of course, even $11 million would be enough to keep most of us in Cheese Whiz through the summer. [read post]
29 Jun 2022, 11:56 am by John Elwood
But barring summer grants, that’s (probably) all for this term. [read post]
27 Oct 2021, 6:21 am by Michael C. Dorf
So will amicus briefs, including one from me and other federal courts scholars (Erwin Chemerinsky, Barry Friedman, Leah Litman, and Fred Smith). [read post]
22 May 2015, 3:55 pm
They have given us real-world examples of its positive impact in discovering and disrupting terrorist plots overseas and at home. [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 2:03 pm by Lyle Denniston
”   Such language, it added, is absolutely essential, under the Smith v. [read post]
20 Dec 2020, 5:38 am by Robert Chesney
(v) Capabilities have been established to train cyber operations personnel, test cyber capabilities, and rehearse cyber missions. [read post]
29 Jan 2016, 1:49 pm by John Elwood
Florida, 15-6075, and Smith v. [read post]
23 Jul 2021, 2:17 pm by Angie Gou
“Is the court taking a siesta as a way of gulling us or… gliding into a more dramatic shift? [read post]
Nevertheless, Neurim argued that in addition to damages for patented (on label and off label) uses it was in principle able to recover damages for non-patented (and also therefore off label) uses. [read post]