Search for: "United States v. United Technologies Corp."
Results 781 - 800
of 1,653
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Mar 2009, 4:00 am
Patent it – Citigroup’s patent on ‘synthetic currency transaction network’ (IP ADR Blog) USPTO seeks National Medal of Technology and Innovation nominations (Daily Dose of IP) US Patents – Decisions ITC: Initial determination in LG’s favour in Whirlpool fridge patent case (ITC 337 Law Blog) (Law360) US Patents – Lawsuits and strategic steps Amsted Industries – ITC denies motion to quash… [read post]
26 May 2018, 3:01 am
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred in holding that lost profits arising from prohibited combinations occurring outside of the United States are categorically unavailable in cases in which patent infringement is proven under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 8:16 am
Desmarais is also registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. [read post]
7 Sep 2010, 1:30 am
AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Feb 2016, 2:41 pm
United Technologies Corp., the oft-criticized contractor-immunity case, qualifies.) [read post]
7 Mar 2017, 6:52 am
United Technologies Corp., in which it ruled the government itself need not design the allegedly defective product in order to be held liable. [read post]
13 Dec 2010, 3:10 am
Holdings v. [read post]
13 Oct 2010, 3:14 pm
It is undisputed that Honeywell performed this work in the United States prior to Solvay's priority date of October 23, 1995. [read post]
20 Mar 2009, 9:00 am
(Afro-IP) United Kingdom EWHC: Independent consultant held jointly liable for infringement: MMI Research Ltd v Cellxion Ltd (PatLit) Can THE JOURNAL ever be distinctive for a journal? [read post]
14 Nov 2012, 7:47 am
Grimm, United States District Judge, D. [read post]
22 Oct 2020, 2:02 pm
In 2010, the defendant began providing the plaintiff with technological support or “IT” services. [read post]
2 Oct 2016, 12:11 pm
See United States v. [read post]
24 May 2023, 3:55 pm
Welcome back to the Cost Corner, where we provide practical insight into the complex cost and pricing regulations that apply to Government contractors. [read post]
21 Oct 2011, 2:00 am
Patent No. 7,289,524 entitled EXECUTION UNIT FOR A NETWORK PROCESSOR and owned by BBN Technologies. [read post]
21 Oct 2011, 2:00 am
Patent No. 7,289,524 entitled EXECUTION UNIT FOR A NETWORK PROCESSOR and owned by BBN Technologies. [read post]
24 Mar 2022, 11:33 am
In the United States, this movement has been led by populist “neo-Brandeisians” who have “call[ed] instead for enforcement that takes into account firm size, fairness, labor rights, and the protection of smaller enterprises. [read post]
23 Oct 2009, 6:11 am
: iLor v Google (ISinIP) US Patents – Lawsuits and strategic steps Princo - Misuse of a patent pool: En banc Federal Circuit to decide whether CD-R/RW patentees improperly sequestered alternative technologies: Princo Corp v ITC (Patently-O) (Filewrapper) US Copyright Radio ‘pay to play’ law ready for vote in House, Senate (Ars Technica) US Copyright – Decisions District Court N D California… [read post]
23 Oct 2009, 5:11 am
: iLor v Google (ISinIP) US Patents - Lawsuits and strategic steps Princo - Misuse of a patent pool: En banc Federal Circuit to decide whether CD-R/RW patentees improperly sequestered alternative technologies: Princo Corp v ITC (Patently-O) (Filewrapper) US Copyright Radio 'pay to play' law ready for vote in House, Senate (Ars Technica) US Copyright - Decisions District Court N D California decision in Louis Vuitton Malletier SA v Arkanoc… [read post]
23 Oct 2009, 5:11 am
: iLor v Google (ISinIP) US Patents - Lawsuits and strategic steps Princo - Misuse of a patent pool: En banc Federal Circuit to decide whether CD-R/RW patentees improperly sequestered alternative technologies: Princo Corp v ITC (Patently-O) (Filewrapper) US Copyright Radio 'pay to play' law ready for vote in House, Senate (Ars Technica) US Copyright - Decisions District Court N D California decision in Louis Vuitton Malletier SA v Arkanoc… [read post]
5 Nov 2010, 12:12 pm
” Hilgraeve Corp. v. [read post]
