Search for: "Testing Holdings USA, Inc." Results 421 - 440 of 516
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Jun 2010, 11:05 pm
USA, Inc., 367 F.3d 1381, 1385 (Fed. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 4:23 am by Steve McConnell
Medtronic Sofamor Danek, USA, Inc., et al., 2009 N.Y. [read post]
24 May 2010, 7:48 pm by Erin Miller
City of Chicago, holding in favor of a group of African Americans who claimed that a discriminatory use of an application test kept them from being hired as firefighters by the city. [read post]
5 May 2010, 10:14 pm
USA, Inc., 583 F.3d 766, 777 (Fed. [read post]
3 May 2010, 9:30 pm by admin
Smith Distributing Company, Inc. entered into an agreement with the U.S. [read post]
15 Apr 2010, 7:04 am by FDABlog HPM
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Southern Division) ruled and issued an Order and Injunction requiring Novo Nordisk, Inc. [read post]
6 Apr 2010, 4:56 am
Shure, Inc (GRAY on Claims) (Patently-O) (EDTexweblog.com) CAFC on relative claim terminology: Power-One, Inc v Artesyn Technologies, Inc (Peter Zura's 271 Patent Blog) (EDTexweblog.com) CAFC: Panel disagrees regarding use of incorporation by reference to identify structure for means-plus-function claims: Pressure Products Medical Supplies, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Mar 2010, 12:19 pm by admin
Upland Wings, Inc., of Sullivan, Mo., agreed to the penalty in an administrative consent agreement and final order placed on public notice today in Kansas City, Kan. [read post]
5 Mar 2010, 12:45 pm by Stephen Albainy-Jenei
Here comes the Patent Reform Act of 2010 in the form of an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to S. 515 (“Amendment to S. 515”). [read post]
1 Mar 2010, 7:11 pm
(IP Dragon) Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court:Konica’s claim dismissed: Konica Minolta Holdings Inc v. [read post]
1 Mar 2010, 7:11 pm
(IP Dragon) Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court:Konica’s claim dismissed: Konica Minolta Holdings Inc v. [read post]
1 Mar 2010, 2:39 pm
(Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Feb 2010, 3:35 am
PLMIC, LLC (not precedential) (TTABlog) Applicant’s policing efforts lead to TTAB reversal of mere descriptiveness refusal of PERFECTING SERUM for skin moisturizer: In re Murad, Inc (not precedential) (TTABlog) TTAB finds HEALTH HOME VACUUM not merely descriptive for vacuum cleaners: Oreck Holdings, LLC v. [read post]