Search for: "United States v. Mark" Results 5681 - 5700 of 10,392
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Dec 2010, 9:39 pm by Marie Louise
(Article One Partners) Patenting green technology: What you need to know (IPEG) US Patents – Decisions CAFC decision in case concerning laser inscribing of diamonds a mixed bag: Lazare Kaplan v PhotoScribe (IPBiz) CAFC sides with USPTO in patent re-examination declaration dispute: In re Meyer Manufacturing (Patents Post-Grant) District Court N D Illinois: Scrivener’s error in patent marking does not preclude finding of intent to deceive: Lundeen et al v John T… [read post]
19 Dec 2017, 12:34 pm by Matthew B. Kaplan
  The case was in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. [read post]
19 Dec 2017, 12:34 pm by kaplan4law
  The case was in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. [read post]
18 May 2010, 1:10 am
Dustcontrol International (EPLAW)   United Kingdom EWHC (Pat): Infringement action won't be stayed pending foreign decision in non-patent claim: Elmotech Ltd & Anor v Guidance Ltd & Anor (PatLit)   United States US General Director Kappos testimony to Congress (Patently-O) Judge Michel: USPTO should receive $1 billion infusion of cash (Patently-O) (Inventive Step) The US Reporting on IPRs - the Watch List (IP tango) Industrial design in… [read post]
13 Oct 2008, 12:12 pm
(IAM) Lost knowledge (IP Spotlight) Nobel Prize winning physicist R B Laughlin explains how IP damages innovation (Techdirt) US v China IP case before the World Trade Organisation - differing news on who won or lost (EXCESS COPYRIGHT) (Chinese Law Prof Blog) WIPO Assemblies conclude (WIPO) (Intellectual Property Watch) (Intellectual Property Watch)       Global – Trade Marks / Brands   Trade mark marking strategy - R… [read post]
12 Apr 2015, 9:08 pm by Lyle Denniston
   It did not do so, for example, in its most recent ruling in a major gay rights case — the 2013 decision in United States v. [read post]
7 Sep 2021, 3:31 am
Appellants argued that the ATJs were likewise principal officers of the United States, and were unconstitutionally appointed. [read post]