Search for: "AT&T Mobility LLC" Results 521 - 540 of 1,882
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Feb 2018, 6:11 am by Joy Waltemath
AT&T Mobility Services LLC, in which it held that attendance was an essential job function for a call center employee who had to be physically present at her work station and logged into the computer to receive customer service calls. [read post]
29 Jan 2018, 8:00 am by Liz Kramer
T-Mobile US, Inc., __ F.3d __, 2017 WL 6374105 (4th Cir. [read post]
27 Dec 2017, 5:48 am by Joy Waltemath
The suit, filed in the Northern District of California, names T-Mobile US, Inc., Amazon.com, Inc., Cox Communications and Media Group, LLC, and similarly situated others. [read post]
27 Dec 2017, 4:48 am by Chris Seaton
 ANY HAND HELD DEVICE WITH MOBILE INTERNET CONNECTIVITY, OR MOBILE DATA CONNECTIVITY. [read post]
23 Dec 2017, 3:41 am by SHG
Copyright © 2007-2017 Simple Justice NY, LLC This feed is for personal, non-commercial and Newstex use only. [read post]
21 Dec 2017, 3:28 pm by Daniel Nazer
The Patent Office didn’t consider any real-world mobile phone applications when reviewing the application.If you want to look for prior art yourself, Unified Patents is running a crowdsourcing contest to find the best prior art to invalidate the ’648 patent. [read post]
21 Dec 2017, 1:24 pm by Pamela Wolf
The suit, filed in the Northern District of California, names T-Mobile US, Inc., Amazon.com, Inc., Cox Communications and Media Group, LLC, and similarly situated others. [read post]
14 Nov 2017, 10:40 am by Shane McCall
In AT&T Corp., B-414886 (Oct. 5, 2017), AT&T protested issuance of a task order to CDW Government LLC under a request for proposals for a mobile devices solution to support the 2020 Decennial Census. [read post]
9 Nov 2017, 9:04 am by Jason Rantanen
Eric Sutton is a senior patent counsel at Oracle and an adjunct professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law. [read post]
26 Oct 2017, 3:30 am by Robert Hillman
Supreme Court’s curious (in my view) decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. [read post]