Search for: "State v. Holder"
Results 6661 - 6680
of 8,109
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Aug 2010, 12:15 pm
The panel then stated that, in contrast to package licenses, “there are no benefits to be obtained from an agreement between patent holders to forego separate licensing of competing technologies,” and that such agreements are “not within the rights granted to a patent holder” and can constitute an antitrust violation. [read post]
31 Aug 2010, 7:12 am
And the San Antonio Court of Appeals case, Ortiz v. [read post]
30 Aug 2010, 6:20 pm
" United States v. [read post]
30 Aug 2010, 5:30 am
The Seventh Circuit stated that every holder of Lincoln’s variable life policies enjoyed such a right. [read post]
30 Aug 2010, 2:17 am
The similarity must be confusing to an “objective bystander,” so stated by the minority Panel in Open Society Institute v. [read post]
30 Aug 2010, 1:17 am
Technogenia v. [read post]
27 Aug 2010, 2:00 am
Last month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in the case of Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. v. [read post]
27 Aug 2010, 12:01 am
Stated differently, when “the Jaffe Group had an interest in Tropicana Enterprises, there was a reason for the Jaffe Group to have some ability to prevent Aztar from using the Tropicana name elsewhere (either in competition or in ways that might dilute the value of the brand) if Aztar were no longer operating the Tropicana Las Vegas. [read post]
26 Aug 2010, 4:05 am
Integra and Burnham sued Merck, Cheresh, and Scripps for patent infringement.307 Writing for a unanimous Court in Merck KGaA v. [read post]
25 Aug 2010, 8:13 pm
” United States v. [read post]
25 Aug 2010, 9:18 am
Kam Lee Yuen Trading Co. v. [read post]
25 Aug 2010, 8:46 am
In Ryan v. [read post]
25 Aug 2010, 5:54 am
The question from the Philips case (which the INTA submission refers to, but doesn't replicate, in its submission) is:Does Article 6(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 (the old Customs Regulation) constitute a uniform rule of Community law which must be taken into account by the court of the Member State which, in accordance with Article 7 of the Regulation, has been approached by the holder of an intellectual-property right, and does that rule… [read post]
25 Aug 2010, 5:30 am
Thomas v. [read post]
24 Aug 2010, 5:00 am
In that case, Singer Management Consultants, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Aug 2010, 2:18 am
Another class is illustrated in General Electric Company v. [read post]
23 Aug 2010, 2:11 am
If the holder’s claim is for trademark infringement its remedy is in a civil court of law. [read post]
20 Aug 2010, 9:08 pm
United States v. [read post]
20 Aug 2010, 3:53 pm
Quoting a March, 2010 federal court opinion in U.S. v. [read post]
19 Aug 2010, 2:34 pm
The second significant case reflecting the sudden shift in the balance of power is Convertino v. [read post]
