Search for: "Marks v. United States"
Results 4001 - 4020
of 9,189
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Jul 2016, 6:54 pm
The reasoning of the CJEU in GAT v LuK was equally applicable here. [read post]
3 Jun 2020, 3:59 am
At Dorf on Law, Michael Dorf wonders why the dissenters to the court’s order late last week in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 9:18 am
CVSG: Now, the Supreme Court has invited the Solicitor General to file briefs expressing the views of the United States in the case. [read post]
6 Jun 2025, 5:51 am
United Servs. [read post]
16 Jul 2017, 4:22 pm
, 302 S.W.3d 299, 302 (Tex. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). [read post]
13 Jun 2020, 12:50 pm
United States, 3 CIT 219 (1982). [read post]
9 Nov 2009, 1:22 am
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in Cornwell v. [read post]
29 Nov 2013, 5:14 am
Miller and Wellons did not purchase an investment unit. [read post]
8 Jun 2010, 4:56 am
Applera Corp (Patently-O) (271 Patent Blog) District Court S D Indiana: Stay pending reexam lifted prior to issuance of reexam certificate (Docket Report) District Court N D Illinois: United States is not an indispensible party to false marking action: ZOJO Solutions Inc. v. [read post]
4 Oct 2010, 1:44 am
Ambu AS (Patently-O) CAFC: Preamble held not limiting because body of claim sets forth complete invention: American Medical Systems v Biolitec (Filewrapper) District Court E D Michigan: General allegations of deceptive intent fail to state a claim for false marking: Josephs v. [read post]
3 Aug 2014, 11:34 am
MCGREGOR, DAVID GHYSELS, DAVID SARAGA, HARJAS CHATWAL, MARK BENNETT, KEVIN R. [read post]
6 Sep 2010, 12:42 am
United States (271 Patent Blog) (Patently-O) (Gray on Claims) (IPBiz) (IPBiz) (PatLit) CAFC: Another means-plus-function opinion: General Protecht Group, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Dec 2009, 9:00 pm
United States v. [read post]
19 Oct 2020, 12:19 pm
In Payward, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Sep 2022, 6:30 am
Mark A. [read post]
3 Feb 2016, 8:57 am
Lee, Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office, No. 15-326 I/P Engine, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Mar 2020, 1:39 pm
It draws its authority from the DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005, which granted the Attorney General power to direct federal agencies to collect DNA from “individuals who are arrested, facing charges, or convicted or from non-United States persons who are detained under the authority of the United States. [read post]
22 Feb 2009, 5:03 am
United States v. [read post]
7 Dec 2014, 9:00 pm
Aug. 13, 2010) The present posture of the case is that Ultramercial is again appealing from the decision of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. [read post]
10 Apr 2015, 7:03 pm
This decision is significant because it will impact a trademark owner’s decision-making process when determining whether to utilize the administrative dispute resolution tribunal of the United States Patent & Trademark Office (known as the TTAB) or to initiate an action before a federal district court. [read post]
