Search for: "Mark Lemley"
Results 521 - 540
of 1,112
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Nov 2007, 9:51 am
In passing, there is a sort of microcosm of the problem in the use by Sheppard of arguments made by Reavy, which separately reminds IPBiz of the use by Mark Lemley of the "transistor as hearing aid" saga proposed by someone other than Lemley (which separately was totally untrue). [read post]
4 Feb 2008, 8:40 pm
Mark A. [read post]
5 Jun 2009, 12:16 pm
Lemley, ICANN and Antitrust, 1 U. [read post]
17 Aug 2016, 8:22 am
Trial Length and Outcomes in Patent Cases Professor Mark Lemley (Stanford Law)11:30 - 12:30 PM Judges Roundtable Hon. [read post]
3 May 2009, 3:06 am
**Mark Lemley's testimony on 10 March 2009Testimony on patent reform on 30 April 2009http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2007/08/is-patent-reform-finding-traction.html [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 6:28 pm
One other result of Monday’s Bilski decision, says Stanford Law professor Mark Lemley, is that there will continue to be plenty of patent litigation. [read post]
7 Oct 2007, 1:13 am
Lemley: It's the "whatever" that's the issue. [read post]
16 Jun 2014, 8:01 pm
Surely, then, the examiners must be making copious use of the prior art that has been submitted by applicants.The answer is—maybe not, at least based on a study reported in the respected journal, Research Policy, Christopher Cotropia, Mark Lemley and Bhaven Sampat, “Do applicant patent citations matter? [read post]
5 Sep 2016, 11:23 am
This time it was asked by two of America’s most prominent scholars of the patent system, Professor Robin Feldman of the University of California Hastings College of Law and Professor Mark Lemley of Stanford University, in their article, “Do Patent Licensing Demands Mean Innovation”, Iowa Law Review, November 2015. [read post]
16 Jun 2023, 12:04 pm
”[19] The Supreme Court emphasized that its opinion was narrow and that “[o]n infringement, we hold only that Rogers does not apply when the challenged use of a mark is as a mark” and [o]n dilution, we hold only that the noncommercial exclusion does not shield parody or other commentary when its use of a mark is similarly source-identifying. [read post]
16 Jun 2023, 11:46 am
”[19] The Supreme Court emphasized that its opinion was narrow and that “[o]n infringement, we hold only that Rogers does not apply when the challenged use of a mark is as a mark” and [o]n dilution, we hold only that the noncommercial exclusion does not shield parody or other commentary when its use of a mark is similarly source-identifying. [read post]
16 Jun 2023, 11:54 am
”[19] The Supreme Court emphasized that its opinion was narrow and that “[o]n infringement, we hold only that Rogers does not apply when the challenged use of a mark is as a mark” and [o]n dilution, we hold only that the noncommercial exclusion does not shield parody or other commentary when its use of a mark is similarly source-identifying. [read post]
12 Dec 2021, 1:09 pm
” Unlike registration denials under Section 1052(a), the PTO denies registration without any inquiry into whether the mark suggests a false connection between the mark and the famous person. [read post]
12 May 2010, 8:24 am
Mark A. [read post]
9 Jun 2016, 2:01 pm
Dinwoodie: what the courts in UK have said about limping marks would invalidate a lot of marks. [read post]
25 Apr 2007, 3:10 pm
Mark Lemley and Stacey Dogan responded with Grounding Trademark Law Through Trademark Use. [read post]
11 Nov 2018, 9:50 am
The post also draws attention to a growing refrain by trademark scholars such as Rebecca Tushnet, Mark McKenna, and Mark Lemley: that a possible response to trademark courts' embrace of alternative theories of confusion is to institute a materiality requirement, like courts use for false advertising claims.What Is Post-Sale Confusion? [read post]
31 Mar 2017, 9:08 am
Lemley: struggle w/peripheral/central divide, b/c advantages and disadvantages for each. [read post]
21 Dec 2011, 9:00 pm
Interestingly, the ITC order follows a recentNYTimes editorial, by Professors Mark Lemley and Colleen Chien who argued for delay in exclusion orders in order to serve the public interest. [read post]
6 Jul 2017, 12:41 pm
"We're not going to participate," Mark Lemley, the director of the Stanford Program in Law, Science, and Technology at Stanford Law School, told Ars in an e-mail. [read post]
