Search for: "Ex Parte Third Generation, Inc."
Results 41 - 60
of 643
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Oct 2010, 8:59 pm
Additionally, Ravi states that requests for ex parte reexamination of the ‘929 patent, the ‘016 patent, and U.S. [read post]
17 Sep 2014, 10:30 am
United States ex rel. [read post]
26 May 2022, 8:47 am
Google, Inc., 474 F. [read post]
8 Jul 2017, 8:25 am
Sys., Inc. v. [read post]
30 Jan 2020, 4:48 pm
Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. [read post]
24 Oct 2012, 2:48 am
Inc. [read post]
14 May 2008, 4:01 am
Additionally, the original ex parte reexam did not allow for third party participation. [read post]
9 Jul 2011, 3:12 pm
Staxxring, Inc. and Molly Langford, ex rel Staxxring, Inc., No. 05-10-01142-CV (Tex. [read post]
8 Jun 2010, 10:46 am
Even then, 78% of all ex parte design patent reexamination requests were filed by a third-party and not by the patent owner. [read post]
3 Jan 2011, 11:24 am
Now, the IRS prohibits these ex parte discussions unless the taxpayer is given the opportunity to attend. [read post]
5 Nov 2015, 7:10 pm
Aegis Therapies, Inc., 2015 WL 1541491 (March 31, 2015, S.D. [read post]
5 Nov 2015, 7:10 pm
Aegis Therapies, Inc., 2015 WL 1541491 (March 31, 2015, S.D. [read post]
2 Jul 2013, 9:01 am
See Ex parte Baxter Int’l, Inc., No. 2009-006493, 2010 WL 1048980, at *5–6, *8–9, *14 (B.P.A.I. [read post]
3 Nov 2011, 5:44 pm
Additionally, ChriMar states that the ‘250 patent has undergone ex parte reexamination at the U.S. [read post]
28 Jul 2011, 3:25 pm
Additionally, Rovi states that the ‘016 patent is currently the subject of an ex parte reexamination that was initiated on September 16, 2010 by a third party requester. [read post]
10 Oct 2014, 5:42 am
, Inc. [read post]
31 Mar 2016, 3:42 pm
” Case citation: Tanisha Systems, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Jan 2008, 5:01 am
(TTABlogged here).Allergan, Inc. v. [read post]
9 Mar 2021, 3:30 am
Cir. 2005)).In general, there is nothing to preclude an applicant from attempting a second time in an ex parte proceeding to register a particular mark if conditions and circumstances have changed since the rendering of the adverse final decision in the first application. [read post]
9 Mar 2023, 3:59 am
Online, Inc., 77 U.S.P.Q.2d 1618, 1623 (T.T.A.B. 2006) (“In light of the evidence of record, we cannot conclude that there is clear evidence that [the term is generic]. [read post]
