Search for: "Verizon, Inc." Results 541 - 560 of 836
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Sep 2010, 4:01 am
Verizon's Bell Atlantic Cash Balance Plan, Nos. 09-3872 & 09-3965 (7th Cir. 2010), recently issued a decision that saved Verizon Communications, Inc. [read post]
2 Sep 2010, 3:59 pm
In a recent Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision, the court determined that a female could pursue a claim of gender discrimination based on sexual harassment and disparate treatment against Verizon Communications, Inc., pursuant to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. [read post]
2 Sep 2010, 3:59 pm by Buckley & Klein
In a recent Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision, the court determined that a female could pursue a claim of gender discrimination based on sexual harassment and disparate treatment against Verizon Communications, Inc., pursuant to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. [read post]
20 Aug 2010, 10:55 am
In an August 20, 2010 paper posted on Lexology, " Lawmakers Argue Against Adoption of Verizon-Google Net Neutrality Plan," Patrick Campbell of Paul Weiss Rifking Wharton & Garrison in New York reports that four Democratic members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee have written to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski voiceing their concerns with the net neutrality policy framework proposed by Verizon Communications and Google, Inc. [read post]
16 Aug 2010, 2:05 pm by Doug
The U.S. should write rules on Internet traffic and ignore an agreement between Google Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc., four Democratic lawmakers said. [read post]
13 Aug 2010, 6:19 am by Stanley D. Baum
Verizon's Bell Atlantic Cash Balance Plan, Nos. 09-3872 & 09-3965 (7th Circuit 2010), the cash balance pension plan maintained by Verizon Communications, Inc ("Verizon") contained a drafting error, resulting from what the Court termed "a single honest mistake", which if enforced literally would give Verizon pensioners substantially greater benefits than they expected. [read post]
5 Aug 2010, 8:28 am by Paul Bland
by Paul Bland, Claire Prestel, and Melanie Hirsch The consumer and civil rights communities are closely watching AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
4 Aug 2010, 7:54 pm by Doug
A person briefed on the negotiations says Google Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. are close to finalizing a proposal for so-called “network neutrality” rules, which would dictate how broadband providers treat Internet traffic flowing over their lines. [read post]
3 Aug 2010, 12:14 pm by James R. Marsh
The government's last attempt to require retention of this information, the Internet Stopping Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of Today's Youth Act of 2007 (SAFETY), was widely opposed by lobbyists representing AOL, Verizon Communications Inc., Comcast Corp., AT&T, Microsoft, and Yahoo [the U.S. [read post]
31 Jul 2010, 10:51 am by Gene Quinn
These so-called false marking cases arise from 35 USC § 292, and were given new life thanks to a Federal Circuit decision from December of 2009 --- The Forest Group Inc. v. [read post]
30 Jul 2010, 1:00 pm by John G. Kelly
 Note that the building was purchased in 2007 from Verizon Communications Inc. for $105,000,000. [read post]
12 Jul 2010, 9:30 am by brandond
On Friday July 9, 2010, NTP Inc. filed patent infringement suits against six major smartphone companies. [read post]
11 Jul 2010, 12:19 pm by Brett Trout
The Service Provider Lawsuit NPT previously sued wireless service providers AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint Nextel and Verizon. [read post]
22 Jun 2010, 12:27 pm by Doug
Edward Lazarus, the chief of staff at the Federal Communications Commission, and other senior FCC staffers are holding closed-door meetings with a small group of lobbyists representing Internet providers, including AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc., the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, and Internet services companies such as Google Inc. and Skype Ltd. [read post]
18 Jun 2010, 6:04 am
Quanta Storage America, Inc. et al (Docket Report) District Court E D Texas: Claim construction revised in light of plaintiff’s inconsistent arguments during reexam: Beneficial Innovations, Inc. v. [read post]