Search for: "Unit, Inc., Appeal of" Results 4301 - 4320 of 13,890
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Dec 2017, 4:16 pm by Amy Howe
The plaintiffs in China Agritech, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Dec 2017, 6:37 am by Barry Sookman
Our Federal Court recently granted an injunction in Bell Canada v. 1326030 Ontario Inc. [read post]
7 Dec 2017, 2:55 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
It granted Arctic Cat’s motion for an ongoingroyalty, awarding $205.08 per unit. [read post]
The National Restaurant Association has requested the Supreme Court of the United States to hear an appeal of the Ninth Circuit case. [read post]
6 Dec 2017, 1:19 pm by ligitsec
105 S.Ct. 2218 85 L.Ed.2d 588 HARPER & ROW, PUBLISHERS, INC. and the Reader’s Digest Association, Inc., Petitionersv.NATION ENTERPRISES and the Nation Associates, Inc. [read post]
5 Dec 2017, 12:01 pm by ligitsec
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Marilyn Hall Patel, Chief District Judge, Presiding. [read post]
5 Dec 2017, 8:53 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
The decision was a mixture:Today we decide three appeals in companion casesfrom final written decisions of the United States Patentand Trademark Office (“PTO”) Patent Trial and AppealBoard’s (“Board”) inter partes reviews (“IPRs”) of U.S.Patent No. 7,191,233 (“the ’233 patent”), owned by CRFDResearch, Inc. [read post]
5 Dec 2017, 8:31 am by John Elwood
” China Agritech, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Dec 2017, 7:40 am by Sarah M Donnelly
Here are the amici curiae in the matter of Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al v. [read post]
4 Dec 2017, 3:58 am by Edith Roberts
., which asks when a state or local government can appeal the denial of a motion to dismiss based on state-action immunity. [read post]
4 Dec 2017, 3:09 am
December 6, 2017 - 11 AM: CrossFit, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Dec 2017, 4:04 pm by INFORRM
Balancing Fundamental Rights: United in Diversity? [read post]
30 Nov 2017, 12:24 pm by Eric Caligiuri
  Previously, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the United States district courts had interpreted the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. [read post]