Search for: "In re Lang"
Results 361 - 380
of 1,021
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Dec 2010, 2:10 am
” In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1371 (Fed. [read post]
2 Nov 2010, 3:10 am
Therefore, it seems clear that any disposition of a Commission action by a Federal Court should not have a res judicata or collateral estoppel effect in cases before such courts. [read post]
16 Jun 2011, 3:10 am
A similar question was recently explored at the CAFC (In re Tanaka) relative to new, dependent claims. [read post]
22 Feb 2011, 3:10 am
However, as made clear by the CAFC last week (In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation) not every victory shows up in USPTO statistics as cancelled/amended claims. [read post]
17 Oct 2011, 3:10 am
As a reminder, patents eligible for PGR that are not business method patents, are those that are within 9 months of issuance, or re-issuance for broadening reissues (§ 321 (c)). [read post]
2 Sep 2010, 3:10 am
” Conversely, the patent owner in its brief relies on In re Costello, 717 F.2d 1346, 1347 (Fed. [read post]
4 Aug 2010, 3:17 am
” In re Morris, 127 F.3d at 1056 (emphasis added). [read post]
28 Mar 2017, 8:45 am
Open&DS=A/HRC/RES/32/31&Lang=F Prière de nous envoyer vos contributions écrites en format Word à l’adresse suivante: civilsociety@ohchr.org. [read post]
10 Nov 2015, 8:17 am
C’est le sujet de l’heure parce que lignes directrices envoyées aux examinateurs du USPTO sont mélangeantes, parce que les agents de brevets sont mélangés, et parce que les avis sur comment sortir de ce piège sont… mélangés. [read post]
27 Jul 2011, 9:15 am
< See generally In re Vamco Machine and Tool, Inc., 752 F.2d 1564, 224 USPQ 617 (Fed. [read post]
18 Aug 2011, 3:10 am
In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290 (Fed. [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 3:10 am
Yet, as one defendant found out recently, perceived gamesmanship in patent reexamination tactics may re-direct that very same bullet to one’s foot. [read post]
24 Oct 2012, 3:55 am
For Federal Circuit review of patentability the criterion is correctness, whether initially decided in the district courts, the Patent and Trademark Office, the International Trade Commission, or the Court of Federal Claims. . . . .These procedures have become beclouded, as in In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. [read post]
7 Feb 2011, 3:15 am
Microsoft’s brief, as well as several of the supporting amicus briefs, cite to In re Etter,756 F.2d 852 (Fed. [read post]
17 Jul 2013, 4:15 am
In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, Accordingly, we conclude that the Board erred in ruling that removing the nonthreaded holes from the head portion of the prior art plates would not have been expected to allow the plates to impart compression between the head portion and the bone. [read post]
26 Jul 2010, 3:10 am
One of the more well known uses of a patent reexamination filed after a district court judgment was illustrated in In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. [read post]
6 Jun 2012, 1:10 am
Only after the Court found that Kilopass adopted inconsistent positions and disavowed claim scope, did Kilopass re-characterize its BPAI position as error and file a submission with the USPTO to “correct an error made without deceptive intent. [read post]
8 Apr 2014, 4:15 am
This is in agreement with In re Tanaka (640 F.3d 1246. 1251, 98 USPQ2d 1331, 1334 (Fed. [read post]
20 Jun 2013, 4:15 am
.); see also In re Natta, 410 F.2d 187, 192 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 836, 90 S.Ct. 95, 24 L.Ed.2d 87 (1969); Natta v. [read post]
14 May 2012, 1:10 am
For inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings, the petitioner (including any real party in interest or privy of the petitioner) is estopped by statute from re-litigating any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in an earlier proceeding. [read post]
