Search for: "Samsung Electronics Co., LTD."
Results 41 - 60
of 488
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Mar 2009, 6:52 pm
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., (No. 07-40984), the Fifth Circuit held that the question of arbitrability should be decided by an arbitrator. [read post]
30 Jul 2010, 4:08 pm
’s (collectively “Samsung”) motion to compel Complainants Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and Murata Electronics North America, Inc. [read post]
18 May 2015, 7:45 am
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. [read post]
9 Jun 2020, 5:15 am
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. [read post]
20 Mar 2013, 5:35 am
Accordingly, Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung electronics America, Inc, and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC shall not file a motion seeking this administrative relief. [read post]
25 Oct 2010, 7:34 pm
., Motorola Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. [read post]
9 Dec 2016, 5:15 pm
Apple docket on Docket Alarm here: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., Petitioners v. [read post]
23 May 2012, 8:39 am
’s (“Apple”) motion seeking permission to re-take the depositions of five witnesses of Complainants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”). [read post]
20 Apr 2012, 2:10 pm
In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted-in-part Complainants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC’s (collectively, “Samsung”) motion for a protective order and granted-in-part Respondent Apple Inc. [read post]
14 May 2012, 10:26 am
A U.S. appeals court ruled that Apple Inc could press its bid for an immediate block on the sale of some tablet computers made by Samsung Electronics Co Ltd based on allegations of infringement of one patent. [read post]
21 Nov 2013, 2:25 pm
. $290.45 million Thursday following a re-trial in the protracted legal struggle between the American technology giant and Samsung Electronics Co. [read post]
25 Jul 2012, 2:44 pm
Apple Inc said Samsung Electronics Co Ltd is demanding from the iPhone maker a far higher patent royalty than Apple pays to other companies, at a rate the South Korean company has never sought from any other licensee. [read post]
4 May 2010, 6:31 am
Ltd. and Murata Electronics North America, Inc. [read post]
31 May 2012, 3:40 pm
In Order No. 12, ALJ Pender denied Respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. [read post]
9 Jul 2010, 4:15 pm
’s (collectively “Samsung”) motion to compel Complainants Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd and Murata Electronics North America, Inc. [read post]
26 Oct 2015, 9:20 am
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., a divided panel for the Federal Circuit (Judge Moore, concurring Judge Reyna, and dissenting Chief Judge Prost) found that the lower court erred in its denial, vacated the decision, and remanded the case back to the lower court. [read post]
27 Jul 2022, 9:52 pm
In Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v LG Display Co Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 466 the Court of Appeal observed that a “clear and compelling justification must be provided” to depart upwards from London 1 Guideline Hourly Rates (GHRs) as “the guideline rates for London 1 already assume that the litigation in question qualifies as ‘very heavy […] [read post]
8 Jun 2010, 12:52 pm
Ltd. and Murata Electronics North America, Inc. [read post]
16 Aug 2013, 12:19 am
Samsung Electronics Co. [read post]
14 Apr 2021, 1:15 pm
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2021-1565, urging a panel of the U.S. [read post]
