Search for: "United States v. Holder"
Results 2621 - 2640
of 4,280
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Sep 2012, 8:45 am
The 2006 Amendments to the Voting Rights Act passed the United States Senate by a vote of 98-0 and passed the House 390-33, but there was more intrigue than the lopsided numbers suggest. [read post]
10 Sep 2012, 6:26 am
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)In his 19-page decision last week in Libya & Embassy of Libya v. [read post]
8 Sep 2012, 12:35 pm
Motorola Mobility appealed this order, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will hold a hearing on Tuesday, September 11.The Daubert motions are all about what the FRAND royalty rate should be, not about injunctive relief per se. [read post]
7 Sep 2012, 9:30 pm
In 2009, in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. [read post]
7 Sep 2012, 7:13 am
United States. [read post]
6 Sep 2012, 9:06 pm
Holder and Shelby County v. [read post]
6 Sep 2012, 1:27 pm
United States (Damages Decision), 97 Fed. [read post]
6 Sep 2012, 6:24 am
In the amicus curiae brief on behalf of the United States, the U.S. [read post]
5 Sep 2012, 4:19 am
The Apple v. [read post]
4 Sep 2012, 7:04 am
We previously reported on developments in various United States Courts of Appeal decisions concerning reverse payments in Hatch-Waxman litigation settlements - that is, payments made by branded pharmaceutical patent holders to generic challengers to postpone market entry of the generic product. [read post]
31 Aug 2012, 7:58 pm
But again, the name of an exemplary product is unimportant.Last year, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion on a case (TiVo v. [read post]
30 Aug 2012, 6:49 pm
Nike – copyright holder agreement case. [read post]
30 Aug 2012, 1:48 pm
Co. v. [read post]
30 Aug 2012, 10:21 am
Ass'n v. [read post]
30 Aug 2012, 9:21 am
Ass’n v. [read post]
29 Aug 2012, 10:09 pm
Noting the recent K-Dur decision, the brief goes on to argue that “California law does not permit a patent holder to exclude competition with a naked cash payment so large it casts serious doubt on the patent’s legal ability to exclude. [read post]
29 Aug 2012, 2:28 pm
His patent is United States Patent: 7352953. [read post]
28 Aug 2012, 5:27 pm
, pp. 29-34(6) Ivan Hare Measuring Media Plurality in the United Kingdo [read post]
27 Aug 2012, 3:06 pm
In Amkor, the Federal Circuit answered an important question about 102(g): whether an oral disclosure of an invention to the United States is sufficient to constitute prior art. [read post]
