Search for: "ICON HEALTH AND FITNESS" Results 61 - 80 of 334
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Oct 2013, 12:00 pm by Dennis Crouch
ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., Docket No. 12-1184; and Highmark Inc. v. [read post]
1 Oct 2013, 8:15 am by Dennis Crouch
ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., Docket No. 12-1184; Highmark Inc. v. [read post]
6 May 2016, 6:21 am by Tim Sitzmann
Icon Health and Fitness, Inc. decision to trademark claims is gaining traction among federal appellate courts. [read post]
29 Jul 2015, 1:02 pm
Public health advocates want people to monitor their health, and a lot of people think fitness trackers are cool ways to do it. [read post]
21 Jul 2015, 12:06 pm by Mark Dighton
Icon Health & Fitness granted district court judges broad discretion to award attorneys’ fees as they see fit in patent litigation. [read post]
16 Jul 2014, 7:08 am by Docket Navigator
Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1749 (April 29, 2014), the court granted plaintiff's motion to reconsider an earlier order denying plaintiff's motion for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
17 Apr 2012, 6:50 am by Lorraine Fleck
Canada | Gucci wins trademark infringement case against counterfeiter http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2012/2012fc404/2012fc404.html Icon Health & Fitness sues 5 popular fitness app developers for alleged patent infringement http://zite.to/InZnUq Ferrari Patents a Mostly Conventional Hybrid System, Not KERS http://zite.to/HGem2O Apple Wins a Major Patent Victory for the iTunes Store http://zite.to/HPILut Update on the Australian plain cigarette packaging… [read post]
31 Jul 2015, 6:23 am by Tim Sitzmann
Icon Health & Fitness, the Supreme Court rejected these heightened standards. 134 S.Ct. 1749 (2014). [read post]
29 Apr 2014, 8:07 am by Dennis Crouch
Icon Health (Supreme Court 2014) The Patent Act allows district courts to award attorney fees to the prevailing party in “exceptional cases. [read post]
6 May 2024, 3:54 am
On motion of the USPTO Director as intervenor [pdf here], the CAFC remanded to the Board its decision in Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v ERB Industries, Inc., Opposition No. 91264855 (June 27, 2003) [pdf here], because the USPTO raised "legitimate concerns about the Board’s findings on the relatedness between ERB’s goods and iFIT’s services and also wishes to reconsider the decision in light of Naterra International, Inc. v. [read post]
12 Oct 2007, 11:27 am
ICON Health & Fitness, 2:05cv527-DF started trial this morning in Judge David Folsom's court in Marshall. [read post]