Search for: "Lexmark"
Results 61 - 80
of 688
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Mar 2017, 2:15 am
Lexmark International, Inc. [read post]
10 Mar 2020, 1:44 pm
Of course, the reason the statements in Lexmark might still not have been commercial advertising or promotion was that they were made to Lexmark’s competitors, which is still a problem under prong (3)—it’s not super plausible that they were designed to directly generate sales of Lexmark’s products, though they could have decreased the supply of competing products indirectly. [read post]
23 Apr 2010, 8:21 am
(See Law.com article ) The Court recounted, "In 2005, we affirmed a grant of partial summary judgment for Lexmark International ("Lexmark") in a suit brought by Lexmarks one-time partners, BDT Products [read post]
30 May 2017, 8:53 am
The theory relied upon by the Federal Circuit in decisions such as Malkinkrodt, and reaffirmed by the en banc court in Lexmark v. [read post]
4 Dec 2013, 6:10 pm
The dispute got very heated, with Lexmark ultimately going to SCC's customers to say that the company was infringing on Lexmark's intellectual property. [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 3:37 pm
The OUII provided such apportionment for Lexmark. [read post]
28 Jul 2014, 9:16 am
The court found Lexmark “totally inapplicable. [read post]
11 Aug 2016, 5:45 pm
This project uses the Federal Circuit's dispute in Lexmark (on remand) over the breadth of the holding in Quanta. [read post]
27 Aug 2014, 8:43 pm
But, in doing so, Lexmark silently demolished one of the foundations underlying Steel Co. [read post]
29 Jul 2017, 8:23 pm
Lexmark International, Inc. [read post]
2 Dec 2016, 11:41 am
Lexmark International, Inc., SCT Docket No. 15-1189. [read post]
6 Apr 2017, 8:27 am
” Crocs argued that Dawgs failed to allege standing under the Lanham Act or a cognizable injury that was proximately caused by the alleged Lanham Act violation, but Lexmark didn’t foreclose Dawgs’ claim at the pleading stage. [read post]
12 Aug 2021, 11:52 am
” Do Lexmark’s zone of interests and proximate cause requirement apply to false endorsement? [read post]
29 Aug 2015, 8:00 am
Smith has devoted his life to the office supply company founded by his father—a company that’s now under legal attack by printing behemoth Lexmark International, Inc. [read post]
20 Apr 2011, 4:13 am
Lexmark International, Inc., slip op. [read post]
3 Feb 2018, 8:58 pm
Early Reports and New Ideas after Lexmark" on February 8, 2018 from 2:00 to 3:00 pm (ET). [read post]
2 Apr 2015, 12:25 pm
(I think the court misreads Lexmark’s language—the fact that it’s not advertising doesn’t mean that it didn’t proximately cause Mitchell’s harm; defamation generally does proximately cause reputational harm when it’s actionable. [read post]
7 Oct 2015, 9:11 pm
Last Friday, the Federal Circuit heard en banc argument on whether it should adopt a U.S. rule of international patent exhaustion in Lexmark v. [read post]
22 Jun 2015, 1:19 pm
In a case called Lexmark v. [read post]
3 Apr 2014, 11:30 pm
Anyway, back to Lexmark and standing. [read post]
