Search for: "In re: Packard"
Results 21 - 40
of 435
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 May 2014, 8:40 am
In re Packard (Fed. [read post]
19 Apr 2011, 9:11 am
Drawing upon a rule articulated in dicta by Judge Rich in In re Handel, 312 F.2d 943, 946 n.2 (CCPA 1963), an implication of the rule in In re Muller, 417 F.2d 1387 (CCPA 1969), and an assumption of the rule in Hewlett-Packard Co. v. [read post]
26 Jan 2007, 7:43 am
Lamb’s lawsuit briefly re-raised the specter of pretexting, or the obtaining of personal [...] [read post]
12 Jan 2021, 4:15 am
Last week, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued binding indefiniteness guidance in a memorandum from Director Andrei Iancu that addresses confusion about which indefiniteness standard applies in post-grant proceedings: the standard set forth in In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307 (Fed. [read post]
3 Dec 2010, 5:00 am
Hackborn did not stand for re-election to the Board of Directors at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders. [read post]
30 Mar 2009, 4:17 am
Samir Husni, a journalism professor at the University of Mississippi who plans to use the technology in his classroom, said, "We're not talking about replacing the Vanity Fairs of the world. [read post]
9 Jun 2009, 9:33 am
First, Nanette Packard and now Mark Jarosik. [read post]
5 Aug 2008, 10:30 am
Tall Tree Insurance Company ("Tall Tree") issued two excess liability insurance policies to Hewlett-Packard Company ("HP"). [read post]
12 Jan 2021, 4:15 am
Last week, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued binding indefiniteness guidance in a memorandum from Director Andrei Iancu that addresses confusion about which indefiniteness standard applies in post-grant proceedings: the standard set forth in In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307 (Fed. [read post]
27 Jun 2013, 8:14 pm
Yes, KSR and predictable results were cited.In re Huang on arguments of counsel also was cited. [read post]
4 Nov 2017, 9:07 pm
Gene Quinn, founder of IPWatchdog.com; Todd Van Thomme of Nyemaster Goode; Cynthia Gilbert of Blueshift IP, LLC; and Dave Stitzel, IP Solutions Consultant at LexisNexis® IP will discuss the following: • Nautilus versus In re Packard. [read post]
17 Feb 2018, 8:13 pm
Gene Quinn of IPWatchdog.com and Dave Stitzel of Reed Tech® will discuss best practices for filing a robust application to avoid 112 rejections and associated problems, and will address the following topics: • Indefiniteness: Nautilus (SCOTUS standard) versus In re Packard (USPTO standard) • Identifying and Interpreting 112(f) means plus function limitations • Alternative and Negative Limitations • Relational and Exemplary Language • Numerical Ranges… [read post]
4 Oct 2006, 4:27 am
If you're in-house counsel to a Silicon Valley tech company, you may not know that you've been taking some lumps lately - head over to the WSJ blog to read a recent post and the resulting comments - you may want to chime in: "Hewlett-Packard's board-leak investigation and the backdating of stock options are shining a light on the role of in-house lawyers at Silicon Valley technology companies. [read post]
15 Jun 2014, 7:33 pm
., 134 S.Ct. 2120 (June 2, 2014) and In re Packard, — F.3d —-, 2014 WL 1775996 (Fed. [read post]
12 Sep 2010, 9:01 am
" Hewlett-Packard Co. disclosed Thursday that a probe by the U.S. [read post]
27 May 2009, 10:00 am
Boxer by contributing to her re-election and attending the lunch -- 12:30-2:00 p.m. [read post]
13 Aug 2010, 5:00 am
HP, Hurd, Deloitte and Tone at the Top by Francine McKenna in re: The Auditors What do HP, Boeing and Navistar have in common? [read post]
30 Jan 2008, 4:48 am
Hewlett Packard's GC Mike Holston, who spoke with Reuters recently about the meeting, commented that "we're 95 percent of the way there . . . we're in the final stretch. [read post]
30 Mar 2012, 10:01 am
Hewlett-Packard Co., C.A. [read post]
15 Jun 2014, 8:28 pm
June 17, 2014 - "Indefiniteness after In re Packard and Nautilus" (Intellectual Property Owners Association) - 2:00 to 3:00 pm (ET) June 18, 2014 - "Reviewing Fact Issues of Claim Construction -- Will the Supreme Court Defer to Federal Circuit Precedent? [read post]
