Search for: "Microsoft v. United States"
Results 301 - 320
of 1,433
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Dec 2010, 7:17 am
The critical decision was, I think, Davis. v. [read post]
30 Oct 2024, 9:31 am
Lenovo (United States), Inc., No. 24-1515 (Fed. [read post]
31 Jan 2011, 8:10 am
-Subject to the limitations under paragraph (2), if the issue of an original patent is delayed due to the failure of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to issue a patent within 3 years after the actual filing date of the application in the United States… the term of the patent shall be extended 1 day for each day after the end of that 3-year period until the patent is issued. [read post]
31 Jan 2011, 8:10 am
-Subject to the limitations under paragraph (2), if the issue of an original patent is delayed due to the failure of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to issue a patent within 3 years after the actual filing date of the application in the United States… the term of the patent shall be extended 1 day for each day after the end of that 3-year period until the patent is issued. [read post]
9 Sep 2006, 8:18 am
The Patently blog analyzes the decision in the matter of Intel Corporation, Dell, Inc., Microsoft Corporation et al. v. [read post]
17 May 2010, 8:12 am
Florida United States v. [read post]
22 Jul 2018, 1:39 pm
United States v. [read post]
15 Feb 2013, 12:03 pm
Last year Microsoft submitted a couple of charts to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington indicating an estimated annual royalty amount of $4 billion, and a rate of $4.48 per Xbox. [read post]
19 Jun 2012, 1:29 pm
The United States and Israel are responsible for developing the sophisticated espionage rootkit known as Flame, according to anonymous Western sources quoted in a news report. [read post]
15 Mar 2011, 7:51 am
Patent No. 6,725,281 entitled SYNCHRONIZATION OF CONTROLLED DEVICE STATE USING STATE TABLE AND EVENTING IN DATA-DRIVEN REMOTE DEVICE CONTROL MODEL and owned by Microsoft. [read post]
15 Mar 2011, 7:51 am
Patent No. 6,725,281 entitled SYNCHRONIZATION OF CONTROLLED DEVICE STATE USING STATE TABLE AND EVENTING IN DATA-DRIVEN REMOTE DEVICE CONTROL MODEL and owned by Microsoft. [read post]
25 Mar 2023, 12:54 am
I quoted several passages from the Epic Games v. [read post]
29 May 2017, 7:31 am
’ United States v. [read post]
17 Dec 2010, 12:32 am
In first instance, the United Stated District Court of Arizona decided on the case. [read post]
19 Jan 2015, 11:36 pm
§ 271(a) (emphases added); Microsoft Corp. v. [read post]
5 Mar 2024, 9:27 pm
At issue legally is Title 17 of the United States Code. [read post]
20 Feb 2013, 11:54 am
Dissecting Bilski: The Meaning of the Supreme Patent DecisionWho knows what goes through the minds of anyone, let alone a cloistered Justice of the United States Supreme Court. [read post]
29 Feb 2012, 3:28 pm
Because infringement occurred “all over the United States, including Delaware . . . the claims arise in every judicial district. [read post]
2 Feb 2017, 6:00 am
About a year ago, the United States Supreme Court granted Microsoft’s petition to review this question: “Whether a federal court of appeals has jurisdiction under both Article III and 28 U.S.C. [read post]
13 Mar 2012, 4:21 am
See Maloney, et al. v. [read post]
