Search for: "Lowe v. United States"
Results 2961 - 2980
of 4,753
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Aug 2013, 8:52 am
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Sequenom’s motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent Ariosa from making, using, or selling that test. [read post]
25 Aug 2013, 5:30 am
Crumpled paper copyright claim dismissed Rains v. [read post]
22 Aug 2013, 4:00 am
Ltd. v. [read post]
21 Aug 2013, 1:07 pm
This month, the Attorney General has asked the United States Supreme Court to overturn the First Circuit Court of Appeals’ reasoning and decision in an 2013 appeal before the High Court, United States v. [read post]
21 Aug 2013, 12:06 pm
The other two attack vectors relate to reexaminations of two patents-in-suit.Meanwhile the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has decided to reexamine another patent found infringed by Samsung at last year's trial, as well as a patent Apple asserted against Samsung at the ITC (unsuccessfully so, but it could still pursue this assertion on appeal). [read post]
19 Aug 2013, 6:27 pm
Walling v. [read post]
16 Aug 2013, 12:50 pm
(quoting United States v. [read post]
15 Aug 2013, 3:40 pm
In Mlynarski v. [read post]
15 Aug 2013, 1:54 am
In late July the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a "final" (but not final-final) Office action rejecting all claims of the '915 patent. [read post]
14 Aug 2013, 12:05 pm
In reversing the Southern District, the Second Circuit held that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in American Express Co. v. [read post]
13 Aug 2013, 12:44 pm
With United States v. [read post]
13 Aug 2013, 9:30 am
Staying with the context of antitrust law, take the example of FTC v. [read post]
13 Aug 2013, 7:03 am
Johnson (1989) and United States v. [read post]
12 Aug 2013, 10:32 am
United States Department of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 470 (1989)(Kennedy, concurring)(“[w]here the language of a statute is clear in its application, the normal rule is that we are bound by it”) http://bit.ly/14E67gv. [read post]
12 Aug 2013, 10:32 am
United States Department of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 470 (1989)(Kennedy, concurring)(“[w]here the language of a statute is clear in its application, the normal rule is that we are bound by it”) http://bit.ly/14E67gv. [read post]
12 Aug 2013, 8:18 am
Waxman), and certain Democratic Members of the United States House of Representatives (Paul M. [read post]
4 Aug 2013, 12:46 pm
Supreme Court ruled in Bolling v. [read post]
3 Aug 2013, 1:29 pm
United States so that you don't have to go insane. [read post]
31 Jul 2013, 2:38 pm
Poverty can be grim and corrosive, and social mobility in the United States is not what it used to be. [read post]
31 Jul 2013, 4:11 am
Third, Steve asserts that the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces’ decision in United States v. [read post]
