Search for: "In re Ingersoll" Results 41 - 60 of 93
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Oct 2011, 3:08 pm
Orange (a patent attorneywith Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, Washington, DC, an activist in the start-up space as an investor and advisor -- and an expert in delegation of hard work to others, judging by the way he has farmed out the substantive text of this book to a team of eleven contributors). [read post]
6 Sep 2011, 8:16 am by David Lat
You’re only going to get yourself deeper into debt, without improving your job prospects. [read post]
24 Aug 2011, 10:57 pm
One such case was in a California Supreme Court case known as Ingersoll v. [read post]
11 May 2011, 8:57 am by Lawrence Taylor
The first state supreme court decision to define these regulations was Ingersoll v. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 7:48 am by Phil
Keane of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC is one of the articles focused on the United States. [read post]
6 Jan 2011, 5:25 am by Stefanie Levine
Ingersoll Cutting Tool requested a stay pending reexamination and agreed not to deal in products allegedly covered by the patent at issue for a predetermined time frame.[9] The Court found that the Plaintiff's complaints were substantially mitigated by Ingersoll's agreement and granted the stay. 2. [read post]
6 Jan 2011, 5:25 am by Stefanie Levine
Ingersoll Cutting Tool requested a stay pending reexamination and agreed not to deal in products allegedly covered by the patent at issue for a predetermined time frame.[9] The Court found that the Plaintiff's complaints were substantially mitigated by Ingersoll's agreement and granted the stay. 2. [read post]
24 Oct 2010, 11:48 pm by Marie Louise
(Docket Report) Fast tracking inter partes patent re-examination by agreement (Patents Post Grant Blog) Fixing indirect infringement problems in patent reexamination? [read post]
16 Sep 2010, 4:39 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Moderator: Lynn Alstadt, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, PC, Pittsburgh, PA Frank E. [read post]
10 Sep 2010, 8:07 am by Bexis
Ingersoll-Rand Co., 14 P.3d 990, 995 (Alaska 2000) (§17); see also Munhoven v. [read post]