Search for: "No Limits Productions, LLC"
Results 3741 - 3760
of 5,668
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Oct 2013, 9:56 am
M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1249- 50 (Fed. [read post]
10 Oct 2013, 8:42 am
American Sleep Medicine LLC ($15.3 Million) The Department of Justice announced a $15.3 million False Claims Act settlement it reached with American Sleep Medicine LLC. [read post]
7 Oct 2013, 11:06 am
As noted earlier, the record shows that Pickering teaches each limitation of Claim 8 except for a “data path. [read post]
3 Oct 2013, 12:40 pm
Holderman in Chicago (Northern District of Illinois) has largely adopted Judge Robart's approach, and in at least one respect -- the royalty base -- he actually took a licensee-friendlier approach, focusing completely on the price of WiFi chipsets because the patent holder failed to convince him of a royalty based on the price of an entire end product.The numerical outcome is that Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC, a patent assertion entity that "has sued numerous coffee shops, hotels,… [read post]
2 Oct 2013, 7:35 pm
Histogen Aesthetics, LLC., 2012-1560, (Fed. [read post]
1 Oct 2013, 8:15 am
Octane Fitness, LLC v. [read post]
30 Sep 2013, 11:47 am
Limitation on Employment of L Nonimmigrants. [read post]
30 Sep 2013, 3:28 am
Y.S.2d 531 [4th Dept 2011] (rejecting contention that the fiduciary duty owed to LLCs members ceased when the members orally agreed for one member to buyout the equity interests of the other, since the duty continues until the LLCs were actually dissolved); see also LLC Law § 203(d), “A limited liability company formed under this chapter shall … continue until the cancellation of the limited liability company’s articles of… [read post]
26 Sep 2013, 4:51 am
And here is some interesting commentary from Caroline Schroder of Sulgrave LLC (here is Caroline's blog): Say startups raise small sums of $100K-$400k through crowdfunding. [read post]
25 Sep 2013, 12:12 pm
Indianapolis, Indiana -- Alcon Research, Ltd. of Fort Worth, Texas, and Alcon Pharmaceuticals Ltd. of Fribourg, Switzerland (collectively, "Alcon") have filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Wockhardt Limited of Mumbai, Maharashta, India; Wockhardt Bio AG of Zug, Switzerland; Wockhardt Bio Ltd. of Zug, Switzerland; and Wockhardt USA, LLC of Parsippany, New Jersey (collectively, "Wockhardt") infringed Patent Nos. 6,995,186 (the "'186… [read post]
25 Sep 2013, 9:31 am
In order to achieve that objective, each attorney’s practice is limited to a few areas of law, while members of varied practice groups routinely coordinate their efforts to provide comprehensive services to clients with issues that involve various areas of law. [read post]
24 Sep 2013, 7:05 pm
Luminant Generation Company LLC v. [read post]
23 Sep 2013, 12:21 pm
The settlement details that VSR’s supervisory failures regarding concentration limits occurred because the firm used inaccurate statements reflecting the customer’s true concentration in alternative investments and because the firm used inaccurate risk ratings of products to increase allowable concentration levels. [read post]
22 Sep 2013, 5:30 am
FILMON X LLC, Dist. of Columbia 2013http://t.co/7azXy5rkKn -> Sarah Palin sued for copyright infringement by New Jersey publisher http://t.co/ojxzcyzaA6 -> VIACOM V YOUTUBE POSTSCRIPT—COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE BLURRED LINES OF DMCA SAFE HARBORS http://t.co/RIeACFKyd9 -> Divided CAFC Finds Computer System Claims Patent Ineligiblehttp://t.co/4fmEdo5ULn -> Collective Copyright Trolling? [read post]
20 Sep 2013, 9:39 am
NOLA Spice Designs, LLC v. [read post]
20 Sep 2013, 7:08 am
B-Tek Scales, LLC, 671 F.3d 1291, 1295–96 (Fed. [read post]
20 Sep 2013, 5:39 am
NOLA Spice Designs, LLC v. [read post]
20 Sep 2013, 5:39 am
NOLA Spice Designs, LLC v. [read post]
18 Sep 2013, 5:21 am
Jerusalem Cafe, LLC Following a jury verdict, in favor of the plaintiff-employees, the defendant-employer appealed. [read post]
16 Sep 2013, 9:28 am
The Commission also determined that complainant had not shown that the accused products directly infringe claim 7 of the ‘917 patent because they do not meet the limitation “command,” and that complainant had not shown that the accused products directly infringe claim 24 of the ‘742 patent because they do not meet the limitation “activate or control. [read post]
