Search for: "Sellers v. State"
Results 3261 - 3280
of 3,989
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Jul 2010, 12:14 pm
(picture, left - Justice Kennedy) The test was whether the invention produced a "useful, concrete and tangible result"(State Street Bank & Trust Co v Signature Financial Group (1998) ). [read post]
3 Jul 2010, 2:16 pm
(See Martin v. [read post]
1 Jul 2010, 7:57 am
(Supreme Court 2009, 08-964) As stated by Justice Kennedy in the opinion of the Court, the question in this case turned on whether a patent can be issued for a claimed invention designed for the business world. [read post]
1 Jul 2010, 2:09 am
The Respondent in POEX Ltd. v. [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 1:19 pm
In Lockheed v. [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 11:37 am
In the closely-watched case of Bilski v. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 9:18 pm
See Chadwick v. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 11:24 am
The US Supreme Court today decided in Bilski et al. v. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 11:24 am
The US Supreme Court today decided in Bilski et al. v. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 10:28 am
§101—i.e., whether the invention produced a “useful, concrete, and tangible result,” see, e.g., State Street Bank & Trust Co v. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 8:11 am
Bilski et al. v. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 8:00 am
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has issued the long-awaited decision in the case 08-964 Bilski et.al. v. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 5:01 am
For example, the group cites the Massachusetts law (93A), but the recent case Rule v. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 4:00 am
Second Circuit decision, Gates v. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 2:11 am
Supreme Court’s decision in Morrison v. [read post]
25 Jun 2010, 4:18 am
(IP Osgoode) US Trade Marks & Domain Names – Lawsuits and strategic steps Amazon - Amazon’s importing Nestle’s ‘Smarties’ candy upsets US candy seller (Seattle Trademark Lawyer) [read post]
24 Jun 2010, 5:59 pm
(IP Osgoode) US Trade Marks & Domain Names – Lawsuits and strategic steps Amazon – Amazon’s importing Nestle’s ‘Smarties’ candy upsets US candy seller (Seattle Trademark Lawyer) [read post]
24 Jun 2010, 9:32 am
The suburb has an ordinance banning for sale signs (you can read its text in the earlier post) and I wondered why the ban continued to have force even though the Supreme Court ruled that such ordinances were unconstitutional in the 1977 case Linmark Associates v. [read post]
22 Jun 2010, 6:28 pm
The legal, business, and scientific communities eagerly await the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bilski v. [read post]
22 Jun 2010, 1:46 pm
Compare Posey v. [read post]
