Search for: "HUNT v. UNITED STATES, INC. et al" Results 21 - 40 of 55
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Dec 2007, 7:31 am
Consequently, with the exception of its ruling on the fee litigation issue, the district court's decision is AFFIRMED. 07a0491p.06 2007/12/18 Beattie, et al v. [read post]
25 Aug 2013, 5:30 am by Barry Sookman
DOES 1-99 ND Illi 2013http://t.co/namjuCtHIZ -> Supreme Court Denies Leave To Appeal In C-Map USA Inc., et al. v. [read post]
12 Oct 2007, 9:14 am
Cullen issued his decision Feb. 20, 2003. *** BE&K Construction Co. (32-CA-9479, et al.; 351 NLRB No. 29) Pittsburg, CA Sept. [read post]
17 Jul 2009, 5:21 am
(Ars Technica)   New Zealand NZ releases consultation on revised three strikes proposal (Michael Geist) (Ars Technica) (TorrentFreak)   Nigeria 2 Face Idibia sheds light on music industry in Nigeria (Afro-IP)   Norway Pirate Bay block violates democratic principles, says Norway’s largest ISP Telenor (TorrentFreak)   Spain Domain name ‘seguridadsocial.es’ finds its (secure) way home (Class 46)   Sweden Pirate Bay… [read post]
1 Feb 2010, 4:25 am
Becton, Dickinson and Co (case no. 2009-1008) (Patently-O) District Court N D Ohio: Amended pleading adding a new party relates back to the original filing date for purposes of first-to-file venue rule: Horton Archery LLC v American Hunting Innovations LLC et al (Docket Report) District Court M D Florida: ITC finding of noninfringement warrants summary judgement of noninfringement in parallel lawsuit: Solomon Technologies, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Aug 2011, 11:24 pm by Marie Louise
Hitachi et al (EDTexweblog.com) CAFC sets new test for ‘inequitable’ patent prosecution: Therasense v Becton, Dickinson & Co (JIPLP) CAFC validity determination undone by appellant via patent reexamination? [read post]
7 Aug 2011, 11:24 pm by Marie Louise
Hitachi et al (EDTexweblog.com) CAFC sets new test for ‘inequitable’ patent prosecution: Therasense v Becton, Dickinson & Co (JIPLP) CAFC validity determination undone by appellant via patent reexamination? [read post]