Search for: "In re Applied Materials, Inc."
Results 361 - 380
of 2,706
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Feb 2009, 11:45 am
In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litig., 164 F. [read post]
21 Feb 2014, 8:53 am
Mylan, Inc., 911 F. [read post]
2 Dec 2021, 3:08 am
See In re N. [read post]
30 Oct 2017, 3:54 am
"[1] The authors represented petitioner Cray Inc. in this [read post]
4 Oct 2013, 6:52 am
Epoxy Solutions Inc. shows that this assumption isn’t correct. [read post]
2 Apr 2014, 9:58 am
Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Sep 2019, 4:30 am
The courts apply a ‘substantial similarity’ test in these actions, which are more difficult to prove. [read post]
11 Jun 2018, 8:25 am
AOL Inc., 752F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. [read post]
12 Dec 2018, 2:23 pm
’” In response, Mechanix Wear, Inc., a glove manufacturer, protested when it was only able to locate one source for the leather requested, arguing that an exception to the Betty Amendment applied. [read post]
24 Apr 2012, 5:00 am
In re LBS Capital Management, Inc., SEC Release No. [read post]
1 Jan 2010, 6:07 pm
Rocky Brands, Inc. v. [read post]
Precedential No. 18: Invoking 13th duPont Factor, TTAB Reverses 2(d) Refusal of ANYWEAR for Footwear
9 Apr 2012, 3:05 am
In re Strategic Partners, Inc., 102 USPQ2d 1397 (TTAB 2012) [precedential].There was no question that the two marks at issue are similar, since each is dominated by the word ANYWEAR. [read post]
3 Sep 2015, 11:36 am
” In re Swanson, 540 F.3d1368, 1377 (Fed. [read post]
24 Jun 2020, 5:01 am
Most famously, in Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. v. [read post]
1 Oct 2015, 3:15 pm
Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323 (Fed.Cir. 2005) (“One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identicalproblem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply itsteachings. [read post]
27 Jul 2011, 2:10 am
In re TreeRadar, Inc., Serial No. 77579817 (July 15, 2011) [not precedential].Res judicata: In light of this Applicant's prior unsuccessful appeal, the Board agreed with Examining Attorney Kristina Morris that Applicant was barred from re-litigating the issue of mere descriptiveness (i.e., inherent distinctiveness).Genericness: Applying the In re Gould approach to the compound word TREERADAR, the Board first looked to dictionary definitions… [read post]
29 Feb 2016, 4:43 pm
See, e.g., In re BioScrip, Inc. [read post]
13 May 2024, 3:42 pm
” Basic Inc. v. [read post]
18 Nov 2011, 6:58 am
Wendt, and the Third Circuit in 2011’s In re DVI Sec. [read post]
24 Nov 2021, 7:18 am
The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, finding Menards had failed to show no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Menards had actual or constructive knowledge and whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied. [read post]
