Search for: "B. Lockwood"
Results 21 - 40
of 54
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Jun 2014, 10:12 am
For maritime law to apply, the action must fall within admiralty jurisdiction, and under the tests prescribed by the United States Supreme Court in Jerome B. [read post]
26 Oct 2012, 11:27 am
DENISE LOCKWOOD CLARK, __ N.J. [read post]
26 May 2012, 8:29 pm
Lockwood. [read post]
29 Nov 2011, 11:05 am
Mar. 14, 2011)(yes), with Lockwood v. [read post]
4 Nov 2011, 12:24 pm
Born, Peter B. [read post]
10 Oct 2011, 4:16 am
First Quality Baby Products (Patently-O) Supreme Court denies sham patent reexamination dispute: Lockwood v. [read post]
19 Sep 2011, 6:30 pm
Lockwood of Baltimore. [read post]
18 Aug 2011, 11:10 pm
Certiorari stage documents:Opinion below (2d Cir.)Petition for certiorariBrief in oppositionAmicus brief of Twelve Foreign Performing SocietiesAmicus brief of Broadcast Music, Inc.Amicus brief of Independent Music Publishers et al.Amicus brief of Ralph OmanPetitioner's reply Title: Lockwood v. [read post]
16 May 2011, 1:10 am
(Docket Report) Graco – ALJ Essex sets procedural schedule in Certain Strollers and Playards (337-TA-762) (ITC Law Blog) Kaneka – ALJ Rogers sets target date in Certain Polyimide Films (337-TA-772) (ITC Law Blog) Lockwood – Dispute over proper use of patent reexamination pursued to Supreme Court: Lockwood v. [read post]
15 Feb 2011, 6:33 am
Small132 years ago today, President Rutherford B. [read post]
8 Feb 2011, 10:16 am
.-- Our colleague Bert B. [read post]
22 Nov 2010, 5:57 am
New York's insurable interest requirement is codified in Insurance Law § 3205(b). [read post]
15 Nov 2010, 4:18 am
US Patents – Lawsuits and strategic steps Hewlett-Packard – ALJ Rogers grants motions to terminate investigation as to certain respondents in Certain Inkjet Ink Cartridges with Printheads (337-TA-723) (ITC Law Blog) (ITC 337 Update) Lockwood – Sham reexamination requests and Federal pre-emption: Lockwood v. [read post]
10 Nov 2010, 2:43 pm
Lockwood v. [read post]
25 Mar 2010, 1:43 pm
Lockwood v. [read post]
24 Mar 2010, 11:33 am
Although the Court did not expressly state that it was applying a description of the invention requirement separate from enablement, that is exactly what the Court did.4 3 Section 26 of the 1870 Patent Act provided, in relevant part: "[B]efore any inventor or discoverer shall receive a patent for his invention or discovery, he shall . . . file in the patent office a written description of [his invention or discovery], and of the manner and process of making,… [read post]
27 Feb 2010, 4:59 pm
Defenses to indefiniteness and inequitable conduct went nowhere, as did on-sale bar (§ 102(b)) based on a provisional priority date. [read post]
26 Feb 2010, 5:10 am
§ 102(b). [read post]
23 Dec 2009, 7:31 am
., Larry B. [read post]
20 Nov 2009, 7:21 am
Lockwood v. [read post]
