Search for: "GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORP"
Results 61 - 80
of 203
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Feb 2014, 7:35 am
Judge Thyne analyzed the relevance of the proffered testimony under the Georgia-Pacific factors. [read post]
6 Feb 2014, 11:20 am
Companies with buildings and operations at the center include Wal-Mart Stores Inc., DSC Logistics, Georgia Pacific, Potlatch, Sanyo Logistics, Maersk, and others. [read post]
The Paramount Interest in Seeing that Patent Monopolies . . . are Kept Within their Legitimate Scope
31 Jan 2014, 5:05 am
” Time and again the court used the phrase as part of its explanation why patent rights should be limited with the excepting being cases that quote the Georgia Pacific factors. [read post]
4 Jan 2014, 9:47 am
Dr. [read post]
21 Nov 2013, 7:16 pm
Operating Corp. is cited extensively by Microsoft in this context.Microsoft argues that its original complaint, which was based in contract law, was a contract action, and the subsequent consolidation of certain patent infringement claims by Motorola into this case for reasons of judicial economy isn't relevant to the determination of the appropriate appellate forum.Pre-emptively, Microsoft counters an apparently-anticipated argument by Motorola that the application of principles of patent… [read post]
21 Nov 2013, 10:12 am
In one rather famous example, in December 1982, with Supreme Court oral arguments pending, plywood manufacturers settled a decade-old antitrust lawsuit filed by purchasers who charged Georgia-Pacific Corp., Weyerhaeuser Co. and Willamette Industries with price-fixing in violation of federal law. [read post]
29 Sep 2013, 9:00 am
Just such a “fact-intensive inquiry” was undertaken by the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan last week in Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP v. [read post]
24 Sep 2013, 7:05 pm
Georgia Pacific Consumer Products, LP 13-41Issue: Whether the court of appeals erred in refusing to follow the holdings of the Eighth and Sixth Circuits involving identical trademark litigation and not giving those rulings preclusive effect – and doing so in ways that disregard the district courts’ inherent authority to consider preclusion and do serious violence to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 and the proper standards other circuits routinely follow when… [read post]
8 Aug 2013, 6:22 am
As such, the judge entered a cross-claim judgment against Georgia-Pacific, to be paid to Ford. [read post]
21 Jun 2013, 6:43 pm
Corp., 852 F. [read post]
20 May 2013, 12:05 pm
The Court has reviewed [the expert's] opinion and his asserted bases for it and concludes he utilizes the proper methodology set forth in Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. [read post]
16 Apr 2013, 7:33 am
[His] opinion is, in essence, (i) the application of Georgia-Pacific factors, followed by (ii) the application of a 50/50 split, derived from the NBS. [read post]
14 Mar 2013, 12:37 am
Supreme Court to Address Causation Requirements in Asbestos Case -Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. [read post]
29 Oct 2012, 7:31 am
Because [plaintiff's expert] used the [Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. [read post]
17 Aug 2012, 6:58 am
Georgia-Pacific Corp., 564 P.2d 277, 281 (Or. 1977); Gilbert v. [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 6:00 am
Georgia Pacific Corp., in which the Eleventh Circuit reasoned that if it were to hold the entire facility covered, irrespective of what the employer does at different areas therein, it would effectively be writing out of the statute the requirement that the adjoining area “be customarily used by an employer in loading, unloading, repairing, dismantling, or building a vessel. [read post]
5 Jul 2012, 2:52 am
Reasonable royalty analysis (Georgia-Pacific factors) Lucent v. [read post]
25 Jun 2012, 9:47 am
Amicus brief of the Mountain States Legal Foundation Reply of petitionersSupplemental brief of respondentSupplemental brief of petitionersCVSG Information:Invited: December 12, 2011Filed: May 24, 2012 (Deny) Georgia-Pacific West, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Jun 2012, 9:47 am
Amicus brief of the Mountain States Legal Foundation Reply of petitionersSupplemental brief of respondentSupplemental brief of petitionersCVSG Information:Invited: December 12, 2011Filed: May 24, 2012 (Deny) Georgia-Pacific West, Inc. v. [read post]
24 May 2012, 2:14 pm
Georgia-Pacific Corp., 390 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004), she did indeed uphold a lower court ruling rejecting an infringement claim, holding that Turning to the question of whether “Quilted Northern Moist-Ones” is, when presented as a whole, confusingly similar to “Wet Ones,” we agree with the district court that it is not. [read post]
