Search for: "Doe Nos."
Results 421 - 440
of 2,057
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Dec 2019, 4:18 am
" In re Flex Ltd., Serial Nos. 86453853 and 86493735 (December 9, 2019) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Michael B. [read post]
19 Jul 2023, 4:15 am
., Serial Nos. 88950207 and 889504201 (July 17, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Robert H. [read post]
7 Apr 2014, 10:38 am
Indianapolis, Indiana - A trademark attorney for Order Inn, Inc. of Las Vegas, Nevada filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that TJ Enterprises of Indiana, LLC d/b/a Order In ("Order In") and Tom Ganser, both of Carmel, Indiana and other unknown "Doe" individuals infringed trademarks for "ORDER INN", Registration Nos. 3,194,903 and 2,801,951, which have been issued by the U.S. [read post]
30 Apr 2013, 1:53 pm
Savani, Nos. 11-4359/11-4494/12-1034, the Third Circuit held that Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines superseded United States v. [read post]
12 Jun 2024, 3:44 am
Virginia Community College System, Opposition Nos. 91283412 (parent) and 91283416 (June 6, 2024) [precedential]. [read post]
9 May 2013, 11:43 am
The Court concluded that it does. [read post]
17 Feb 2014, 9:30 am
Robinson construed several disputed terms and issued summary judgment rulings with respect to the patents-in-suit: United States Patent Nos. 8,077,723 ("the '723 patent"); 7,779,459 ("the '459 patent"); 7,650,634 ("the '634 patent"); 7,302,700 ("the '700 patent"); 6,772,347 ("the '347 patent"); 7,734,752 ("the '752 patent"); and 7,107,612 ("the '612 patent"). [read post]
9 Jun 2008, 7:42 pm
Gates, Nos. 06-2313, 06-2381. [read post]
10 Nov 2010, 3:38 am
Permissive arbitration refers to the ability of the parties to a collective bargaining agreement to voluntarily agree to arbitrate any subject matter as long as it does not concern a matter of public policy. [read post]
24 May 2011, 4:02 pm
., Nos. 2009-1299, 2009-1347, 2011 WL 1815978 (Fed. [read post]
22 Feb 2018, 8:31 am
,Nos. [read post]
16 Dec 2013, 12:23 pm
Doe Defendants 1 - 10, the identities of whom are currently unknown, have also been accused of the illegal acts alleged. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 5:57 pm
The parties in the subsequent insurance coverage action disputed whether Endorsements Nos. 9 and 10 were properly added to the policy; the court ultimately ruled in the coverage action without deciding whether or not Endorsements Nos. 9 and 10 were properly added to the policy. [read post]
9 Nov 2010, 6:19 am
Boggs, Nos. 09-3515, 09-3526 (6th Cir. [read post]
30 Dec 2011, 1:23 pm
Parexel Int’l LLC, ARB No. 07-123, ALJ Nos. 2007-SOX-039, -042 (ARB May 25, 2011) (holding that the heightened pleading standard of federal courts does not apply to SOX claims before the Department of Labor and affirming that allegations of shareholder fraud are not a requirement under the SOX whistleblower provisions); Johnson v. [read post]
8 Aug 2011, 6:21 am
Nos. 08-4804-cv (consolidated) (2d Cir. [read post]
22 Sep 2015, 11:44 am
California State Lands Commission (Sept. 17, 2015) __Cal.App.4th __, Case Nos. [read post]
22 May 2012, 5:14 pm
Intron/Temodar Consumer Class Action, Nos. 10-3046 and 10-3047 (3d Cir. [read post]
25 May 2009, 3:34 pm
Copies of the cases summarized below may be secured from the Law Weekly for a small fee by calling 1-800-276-7427 and providing the PICS Nos. noted next to the case citations.Venue-Forum Non Conveniens-Plaintiff's choice of forum given deference-State Court rulingWalls v. [read post]
29 Aug 2012, 12:33 pm
The substantial evidence inquiry requires this court to determine whether the evidence reasonably supports the Board’s conclusion, which in this case it does. [read post]
