Search for: "Plaintiff(s)"
Results 7281 - 7300
of 178,486
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Dec 2009, 9:48 am
Plaintiff's motion for leave to serve amended infringement contentions, asserting infringement of an additional patent, was denied because defendant made its source code available a month before plaintiff's supplemental contentions were due and plaintiff waited more than four months after that date to seek leave to amend its infringement contentions. [read post]
20 Oct 2014, 9:46 am
The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the immunity statute limits the County’s defenses to those that would be available to a private person. [read post]
11 Mar 2015, 7:09 am
§ 285 following a jury trial because of plaintiff's litigation misconduct after the inventor changed his testimony regarding conception at trial. [read post]
3 Jun 2015, 7:15 am
"[Plaintiff] wrongly argues that 'inequitable conduct cannot be the primary basis for an attorney’s fees award . . . .' If a plaintiff knows that its patent would not have issued but for the intentional omission of material information during prosecution of the patent, then the plaintiff knows that the patent is invalid and acts deceitfully in suing for its infringement. . . . [read post]
23 Jul 2015, 6:44 am
Therefore, plaintiffs' reliance on [their expert's] report was objectively unreasonable. [read post]
29 Oct 2009, 2:15 am
"[A]ll of the facts relevant to [plaintiff's] patent infringement claim were known [11 years ago] when [defendant] initiated the declaratory judgment action that ultimately led to [plaintiff's] recovery on its trade secret misappropriation and fraud claims. [read post]
2 Dec 2010, 8:39 am
[Plaintiff] has no control over a customer’s dissatisfaction with the counterfeit snaps and a company’s reputation and goodwill is not easily compensable. [read post]
14 Apr 2010, 5:41 am
As such, the Court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment against the plaintiff as to Rite Aid's failure to accommodate plaintiff's disability, and remanded the case for further proceedings. [read post]
1 Mar 2009, 10:36 am
Lindor's legal defense in UMG v. [read post]
8 Jul 2016, 9:55 am
The plaintiff’s complaint misstated the date of the plaintiff’s injuries, claiming that the incident occurred over three years prior to the date the complaint was filed. [read post]
15 Jun 2021, 9:04 pm
The defense confirmed on cross-examination of the Plaintiff’s medical expert that the Plaintiff’s surgeon, the PIP IME doctor, and the Plaintiff’s expert were all advised by the Plaintiff that the subject accident involved a high speed rear end accident. [read post]
1 May 2014, 6:32 am
No one believed that plaintiff's shaky hands "excluded him from a broad class of jobs. [read post]
30 Apr 2021, 2:00 am
.), the court denied the Preliminary Objections filed by medical malpractice Defendants to a Plaintiff’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. [read post]
19 Sep 2012, 5:57 pm
Diaz's attorney requested, in part, because prior to trial Ms. [read post]
31 May 2023, 5:53 am
Disagreeing with the court’s ruling, the plaintiff appealed. [read post]
10 Sep 2010, 11:01 am
The court denied plaintiff's motion to extend the statutory 30-month stay of FDA approval, rejecting plaintiff's suggestion that defendant's unsuccessful and later withdrawn motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction "unreasonably prolonged the litigation. [read post]
21 Mar 2022, 5:00 am
In this slip and fall case, the Plaintiff asserted that, prior to the litigation commencing, the alleged tortfeasor Defendant’s liability carrier had allegedly promised to the Plaintiff that the carrier would admit liability for the happening of the Plaintiff’s accident. [read post]
12 Dec 2014, 1:30 pm
Florida medical malpractice damages caps only apply to a plaintiff’s non-economic damages. [read post]
13 Sep 2016, 9:02 am
The trial court had granted summary judgment to the defendant and disposed of the plaintiff’s claim by ruling that the plaintiff’s proposed medical expert, who was a licensed physician in Mexico but not the United States, could not offer testimony in support of crucial elements of the plaintiff’s case. [read post]
13 Sep 2016, 9:02 am
The trial court had granted summary judgment to the defendant and disposed of the plaintiff’s claim by ruling that the plaintiff’s proposed medical expert, who was a licensed physician in Mexico but not the United States, could not offer testimony in support of crucial elements of the plaintiff’s case. [read post]
