Search for: "Research In Motion Limited"
Results 2661 - 2680
of 3,047
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Dec 2009, 5:00 am
Even if the state could take advantage of its governmental status to avoid the statute of limitations, slip op. at 62, it plainly sat on known information - just like (Judge Weinstein pointed out) Alabama had. [read post]
4 Dec 2009, 2:25 am
Research In Motion Limited v. [read post]
29 Nov 2009, 2:09 pm
Merck filed a motion to dismiss the shareholder suit as time-barred, and the district court agreed. [read post]
29 Nov 2009, 1:25 pm
Ilgen at times crumbled into a ball on the floor of counsel's office unable to communicate," Golla wrote in a motion for a lesser term. [read post]
29 Nov 2009, 9:42 am
. _____ at times crumbled into a ball on the floor of counsel's office unable to communicate," Golla wrote in a motion for a lesser term. [read post]
25 Nov 2009, 3:00 am
US Patents How not to invent a patent crisis (The 271 Patent Blog) Chisum on patent law themes and inequitable conduct (Patent Docs) Embezzler of USPTO client accounts receives 18 months in jail and ordered to restore fees (The IP Factor) US Patents – Decisions Supreme Court denies Every Penny Counts’ cert petition regarding claim construction (GRAY On Claims) CAFC affirms E D Texas ruling that Iovate’s muscle building patents are invalid: Iovate & University of… [read post]
20 Nov 2009, 8:45 am
Thus, Freestar's motion to exclude was granted. [read post]
19 Nov 2009, 7:52 am
 By way of example, ALJ Luckern rejected “respondents’ argument that complainant’s research and development investments should be limited to those projects that are directed to the exact technology of the [asserted patent] and finds further that, based on the evidence…respondents’ argument does not create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether complainant has satisfied… [read post]
19 Nov 2009, 7:30 am
 Respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLP (collectively, “Samsungâ€), Research In Motion, Ltd. and Research In Motion Corp. [read post]
18 Nov 2009, 3:38 pm
A summary review of Aviation and Airport Development related news and information that was made public during the past week. [read post]
17 Nov 2009, 7:25 pm
Going through approximately 20 cases in random motions and briefs cited in my legal practice I did not run across a single case not accessible by Google Scholar. [read post]
16 Nov 2009, 4:51 am
(Innovationpartners) Germany Ferrero v FIFA (in World Cup trade mark dispute) – 1:0 says the German Bundesgerichtshof (IPKat) India WIPO Director General pledges support for India’s visually impaired community (WIPO) Delhi High Court on working of patents and S 107A(b) Strix Limited v. [read post]
16 Nov 2009, 4:51 am
(Innovationpartners) Germany Ferrero v FIFA (in World Cup trade mark dispute) - 1:0 says the German Bundesgerichtshof (IPKat) India WIPO Director General pledges support for India's visually impaired community (WIPO) Delhi High Court on working of patents and S 107A(b) Strix Limited v. [read post]
16 Nov 2009, 4:51 am
(Innovationpartners) Germany Ferrero v FIFA (in World Cup trade mark dispute) - 1:0 says the German Bundesgerichtshof (IPKat) India WIPO Director General pledges support for India's visually impaired community (WIPO) Delhi High Court on working of patents and S 107A(b) Strix Limited v. [read post]
13 Nov 2009, 10:58 am
Perlan then amended its 2019 statement which was again met with a motion for protective order. [read post]
13 Nov 2009, 10:58 am
Perlan then amended its 2019 statement which was again met with a motion for protective order. [read post]
12 Nov 2009, 7:20 am
Rowe Price Associates, Inc. (5 percent), ValueAct Capital (10 percent), Capital Research and Management Company (10 percent), Vanguard Group, Inc. (10 percent), Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P (unspecified), Barclays Global Investors (5-15 percent). [read post]
4 Nov 2009, 1:31 pm
The rules limit public information about court proceedings. [read post]
2 Nov 2009, 7:37 pm
The federal lawsuit argues (1) that the genes are not patentable because they are "products of nature" and (2) that the patentee's use of patent rights to limit scientific research on the genes violates constitutional First Amendment protections. [read post]
2 Nov 2009, 7:37 pm
The federal lawsuit argues (1) that the genes are not patentable because they are "products of nature" and (2) that the patentee's use of patent rights to limit scientific research on the genes violates constitutional First Amendment protections. [read post]
