Search for: "No. 337" Results 3021 - 3040 of 4,432
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Nov 2010, 9:23 am
The ITC staff serves as a third party in what are known as 337 disputes as representative of the public interest. [read post]
2 Nov 2010, 8:04 pm by Eric Schweibenz
On October 29, 2010, Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California (“Apple”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. [read post]
2 Nov 2010, 3:26 pm by Aaron
Courtesy of Law Offices of Dena Alo-Colbeck “Writing and Research for Washington Attorneys” The following criminal cases of note were decided this week: Washington State Law Washington State Supreme Court In Re Detention of Post: The Court held that the introduction by the State in Mr. [read post]
1 Nov 2010, 6:31 am by Eric Schweibenz
No. 337-TA-705), granting-in-part Complainant Toshiba Corporation’s (“Toshiba”) motion for summary determination regarding importation. [read post]
28 Oct 2010, 6:36 pm by Kelly
(IPKat) United States US Patents – Decisions District Court S D California: Internet search using “less-than-mainstream search engine” did not show that prior art publication was “readily available public information” and therefore not “newly discovered evidence” under FRCP 60: Presidio Components v American Technical Ceramics (Docket Report) US Patents – Lawsuits and strategic steps Apple – ALJ Bullock rules on motions for summary determination… [read post]
27 Oct 2010, 5:31 pm by Eric Schweibenz
No. 337-TA-716) denying Respondents Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., Freescale Semiconductor Japan Ltd., Freescale Semiconductor (China) Limited, Freescale Semiconductor Qiangzin (Tianjin) IC Design Co., Ltd., Freescale Semiconductor Malaysia Sdn. [read post]
27 Oct 2010, 1:37 pm by Bexis
§337(a), doesn’t allow these claims at all.That argument, win or lose, is considerably more “substantial” under the Grable test. [read post]
27 Oct 2010, 8:30 am by Stefanie Levine
Patent Nos. 5,827,698 (the “ ‘698 patent”) and 6,040,160 (the “ ‘160 patent”).[8]  In April of 2006, Ajinomoto filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) alleging that the importation of various lysine feed products was a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, 19 U.S.C. [read post]