Search for: "Holder v. United States"
Results 3181 - 3200
of 3,854
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Apr 2014, 1:42 am
The most valuable one of Apple's three software patents-in-suit in the first case (most of the damages there relate to design patents, not software patents), the '915 pinch-to-zoom API patent, has meanwhile been rejected by the United States Patent and Trademark Office and Apple had to file an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. [read post]
12 Jan 2013, 1:43 am
Apple is fighting a strategic battle at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. [read post]
19 Sep 2022, 4:25 am
When parties have gone outside the boundaries that the state has set, it makes sense that the state would treat the impermissible act as if it never occurred. [read post]
24 Mar 2017, 7:24 am
Village at Lakeridge, 15-1509, involves questions so important for the Republic, so pressing for our body politic, that the Supreme Court of the United States called for, and now has received, the views of the solicitor general. [read post]
13 Dec 2022, 9:01 pm
By virtue of a 2003 ruling of the state’s highest court, in Goodridge v. [read post]
17 Aug 2020, 8:42 am
AU New Haven, LLC v. [read post]
16 Sep 2014, 9:57 am
The CopyKat suspects she will, but to an extent it's virgin territory in the United Kingdom. [read post]
12 Sep 2010, 10:45 pm
Inc. v. [read post]
19 Jan 2024, 4:00 am
” In the United States applicants may use a terminal disclaimers to “obviate judicially created double patenting” by disclaiming any a portion of the term of a patent and confirming that the patent will be commonly owned with the second patent – see MPEP s1490. [read post]
3 May 2013, 1:58 am
If so, is this state of affairs desirable or does it require correction? [read post]
6 Jul 2013, 12:39 pm
In my previous post I published the dissenting views of Commissioner Pinkert, one of the six chiefs of the United States International Trade Commission (USITC, or just ITC), from the majority decision granting Samsung (unless vetoed by the United States Trade Representative or reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) an exclusion order against older iPhones and iPads. [read post]
5 Aug 2007, 1:54 am
” All rights in preferred stock provisions, even if considered standard or customary, must be “expressly and clearly stated. [read post]
9 Jan 2012, 6:24 pm
Supreme Court’s March 2009 decision in Wyeth v. [read post]
13 Feb 2008, 7:43 pm
See Monsanto v. [read post]
29 Aug 2019, 8:29 am
Eva-Maria Herring (who in the Qualcomm v. [read post]
16 Jul 2010, 7:01 am
The commission may renew such a license only if it is demonstrated that the person's continued presence in the United States is authorized under federal law. [read post]
21 Apr 2012, 5:06 pm
Supreme Court The most significant US Supreme Court decision in this area since our last round-up is one that we trailed in January of this year, in United States v Jones (10-1259 01/23/2012). [read post]
25 Aug 2019, 11:12 am
" United States v. [read post]
18 Jun 2016, 6:17 am
United States v. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 9:36 am
Lash's response to the Amar brothers' amicus brief in Trump v. [read post]
