Search for: "United States v. Mark"
Results 7941 - 7960
of 10,394
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Mar 2011, 8:55 am
” Id.; see also State v. [read post]
16 Mar 2011, 8:20 am
Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988), because a False Marking qui tam relator is not an inferior officer of the government, but rather, is an assignee of a revocable interest of the United States. [read post]
16 Mar 2011, 3:51 am
United States, 10 Civ. 2546, that Mr. [read post]
15 Mar 2011, 1:38 pm
After trial, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Hurd, J.) entered a judgment of acquittal on the conspiracy count citing both factual and legal insufficiency as grounds for its decision. [read post]
15 Mar 2011, 8:13 am
Today's appeal, in Case T-50/09 Ifemy’s Holding GmbH v OHIM, Dada & Co. [read post]
15 Mar 2011, 7:22 am
Compare United States v. [read post]
14 Mar 2011, 11:00 am
William Conley held that the patent marking statute does not violate the "take care" clause of Article II of the United States Constitution. [read post]
14 Mar 2011, 4:59 am
(Docket Report) False marking lawsuits are real problem for business and make little sense when applied to expired patents (IP Asset Maximizer Blog) USPTO symposium March 11 to bring together women inventors and entrepreneurs (Director’s Forum) Deciding whether to stay a case pending reexamination (Reexamination Alert) US Patents – Decisions CAFC: ABB v Cooper – The broad scope of declaratory judgment jurisdiction (Patently-O) District Court Ohio rules false… [read post]
13 Mar 2011, 8:37 pm
Noncapital United States v Styles Taylor and Keon Thomas, 2011 U.S. [read post]
13 Mar 2011, 8:06 am
(internal cites deleted) DiQuisto v. [read post]
11 Mar 2011, 8:01 am
On Februrary 3, Adidas, following-through on its promise to take appropriate action barring a satisfactory response, filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Riedell, here, in Portland federal district court ("home court" for German-based Adidas in the United States). [read post]
10 Mar 2011, 6:47 pm
(IP finance) United States US Patents – Decisions CAFC: In re Katz (part 2): Indefiniteness of computer processes (Patently-O) CAFC: Altair illustrates how to win by losing: Altair v Leddynamics (IPBiz) District Court E D Wisconsin: In Re Seagate does not dictate standard for pleading willful infringement claim: Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation, et. al. v. [read post]
10 Mar 2011, 2:39 pm
United States PTO, 2010 U.S. [read post]
10 Mar 2011, 10:50 am
Answer: Because of the effect on “further appellate review” – which means the United States Supreme Court. [read post]
10 Mar 2011, 6:10 am
United States, which was argued in November. [read post]
10 Mar 2011, 5:23 am
In Sohns v. [read post]
9 Mar 2011, 10:30 am
Yesterday, the United States of America filed a motion to intervene and for reconsideration in the Unique Product Solutions v. [read post]
8 Mar 2011, 12:14 am
See United States v. [read post]
7 Mar 2011, 7:35 am
” (U.S. v. [read post]
7 Mar 2011, 4:22 am
Cooper (2011 ONCA 150) the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that the Ontario courts had jurisdiction to try a defamation claim brought by an Ontario based academic against the “Slavic Review”, an academic journal published in the United States, of which 81 copies were distributed in Ontario. [read post]
