Search for: "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al v. GOOGLE LLC" Results 21 - 40 of 49
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Mar 2020, 8:43 pm by Chris Castle
There is a long history of pirate websites locating themselves outside of the United States but marketing themselves to U.S. users in a deceptive manner that makes it difficult for consumers, including both consumers and brands, to distinguish an illegitimate site from a legitimate one. [read post]
11 Aug 2011, 11:21 pm by Marie Louise
UK High Court considers in TV catchup: (IP Osgoode)   United States US Patent Reform Google-Microsoft spat could be tiny step toward patent reform (ArsTechnica) Ask Ars: Is serious patent reform on the horizon? [read post]
12 Feb 2010, 3:17 am
Traffic Information LLC(Docket Report) District Court E D Virginia: Cookies-functional web browser was ready for patenting when initial draft of source code was logged into repository: Netscape Communications Corp., v. [read post]
24 Jun 2010, 5:59 pm by Duncan
: Don Henley et al v Charles DeVore etc al (IP Whiteboard) TheFlyOnTheWall.com – Google and Twitter pour cold water on ‘hot news’: Barclays v TheFlyOnTheWall.com (Ars Technica) (Electronic Frontier Foundation) US Copyright Group – P2P lawyers tell judge: suing 5,000 ‘Does’ at once is fine (ArsTechnica) US Trademarks & Domain Names Online keyword advertising: Misleading customers? [read post]
25 Jun 2010, 4:18 am
: Don Henley et al v Charles DeVore etc al (IP Whiteboard) TheFlyOnTheWall.com - Google and Twitter pour cold water on ‘hot news’: Barclays v TheFlyOnTheWall.com (Ars Technica) (Electronic Frontier Foundation) US Copyright Group - P2P lawyers tell judge: suing 5,000 ‘Does’ at once is fine (ArsTechnica)   US Trademarks & Domain Names Online keyword advertising: Misleading customers? [read post]
17 Jul 2022, 3:07 am by Florian Mueller
On July 7, United States Patent & Trademark Office Director Kathi Vidal encouraged stakeholders to submit amicus briefs with a view to the Director review of the PTAB decisions in two cases involving challenges to patents asserted by VLSI Technology against Intel. [read post]
  The Executive Order endorsed this approach, noting that “this order reaffirms that the United States retains the authority to challenge transactions whose previous consummation was in violation of the [antitrust laws]. [read post]