Search for: "Goode v. Gray, et al."
Results 41 - 60
of 88
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Jan 2024, 11:11 pm
V. [read post]
7 Jan 2011, 3:11 am
Belkin International, Inc., et. al (Docket Report) District Court C D California: Diligence asserting inequitable conduct measured from date prior art was known to be relevant, not date prior art was known to exist: Aten International Co. [read post]
16 Aug 2010, 2:30 am
Deandre Cortez Way et al (1709 Blog) US Trade Marks – Decisions 4th Circuit: Post-purchase confused restroom users: Georgia Pacific Consumer Products v Von Drehle Corporation (The Trademark Blog) TTAB precedential no. 31: Opposer fails to prove priority, non-use, and fraud in BLACK BELT TV brouhaha (TTABlog) WYHA? [read post]
23 May 2011, 2:20 am
It’s really good and it’s free. [read post]
28 Jun 2011, 1:29 am
GE Healthcare, Ltd., et. al (Docket Report) District Court N D Texas: Judge Solis compares false marking to ‘someone who says, ‘I am not married,’ when indeed, they are’: United States of America, ex rel. [read post]
13 Dec 2010, 7:22 am
Rincon Band of Indians (10-330) and Applera Corp., et al., v. [read post]
15 Jun 2010, 7:50 pm
Country Life, LLC et. al.; McNamara v. [read post]
12 Apr 2010, 5:28 am
Mud Buddy, LLC d/b/a Mud Buddy Manufacturing (Docket Report) District Court Utah: Post-motion correction of discovery deficiency warrants sanctions: CleanCut v Rug Doctor et al (Docket Report) District Court C D California answers: May an inventor previously employed by plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest serve as an expert for defendant? [read post]
7 Feb 2011, 2:58 am
Bridgeport Fittings (Gray on Claims) CAFC: The teeth of KSR: Obviousness on summary judgment: Tokai Corp. v. [read post]
27 Mar 2007, 10:09 am
[mailto:m.ledford3@ledfordlaw.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:11 AMTo: Thomas McCarten Kerr, EsqCc: Barry MerchantSubject: Sony BMG et al. v. [read post]
4 Oct 2021, 1:52 pm
Post-AIA (Point Estimate) We thank LaTia Brand of Harrity Analytics and the Stanford NPE Database, described in Shawn Miller et al., Who’s Suing Us? [read post]
4 Oct 2021, 1:52 pm
Post-AIA (Point Estimate) We thank LaTia Brand of Harrity Analytics and the Stanford NPE Database, described in Shawn Miller et al., Who’s Suing Us? [read post]
22 Feb 2010, 3:35 am
Bissell Homecare, Inc (not precedential) (TTABlog) TTAB sustains 2(d) opposition, finding SWEDISH LUXERY and SWEDISH SLEEP SYSTEM confusingly similar for mattresses: Tempur-Pedic International Inc., et al. v. [read post]
22 Feb 2010, 3:35 am
Bissell Homecare, Inc (not precedential) (TTABlog) TTAB sustains 2(d) opposition, finding SWEDISH LUXERY and SWEDISH SLEEP SYSTEM confusingly similar for mattresses: Tempur-Pedic International Inc., et al. v. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 3:51 am
(GRAY On Claims) District Court E D Louisiana: Prior License of asserted patent does not bar imposition of permanent injunction: Innovention Toys, LLC v MGA Entertainment, Inc. et al(Docket Report) District Court N D California: Delay of five to seven years does not create undue prejudice sufficient to deny stay pending reexam: Spectros Corp v Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc (Docket Report) BPAI: Reissue cannot merely add new dependent claims (without… [read post]
3 Apr 2014, 12:30 pm
California Department of Fish and Game, et al. [read post]
24 Aug 2009, 7:01 am
– unusually entertaining cases before the CAFC: Cornish v Doll (Patently-O) The Independent Inventor’s Handbook (IP Watchdog) US Patents – Decisions CAFC affirms that patent ownership (and standing) can vest through operation of law: Sky Technologies v SAP AG (Peter Zura's 271 Patent Blog) (Patently-O) (Property, intangible) CAFC en banc: Methods do not have exportable components and therefore method claims cannot be infringed under… [read post]
13 Jun 2011, 4:14 am
INVENTIO AG et al. [read post]
7 Aug 2011, 11:24 pm
Hitachi et al (EDTexweblog.com) CAFC sets new test for ‘inequitable’ patent prosecution: Therasense v Becton, Dickinson & Co (JIPLP) CAFC validity determination undone by appellant via patent reexamination? [read post]
7 Aug 2011, 11:24 pm
Hitachi et al (EDTexweblog.com) CAFC sets new test for ‘inequitable’ patent prosecution: Therasense v Becton, Dickinson & Co (JIPLP) CAFC validity determination undone by appellant via patent reexamination? [read post]
