Search for: "State v. Hollander" Results 821 - 840 of 1,029
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 May 2020, 5:29 am by Schachtman
”[5] This rejection of the clear demands of a statute has infected even the intermediate appellate United States Court of Appeals. [read post]
5 Dec 2007, 7:39 am
The New York Cerebral Palsy Resource Guide contains resources for individuals with cerebral palsy within the State of New York. [read post]
4 Jan 2012, 1:21 pm
United States, 64 F.3d 206 (5th Cir. 1995); Barnes v. [read post]
22 Nov 2010, 2:16 am by Kelly
Kappos (IP Spotlight) (Patent Docs) Sham patent reexamination action not available in State Court says CAFC: Lockwood v. [read post]
21 Jun 2009, 10:00 pm
(ITC 337 Law Blog) Academic perspectives on issues raised in Bilski case (IP Osgoode) Star Scientific teaches a valuable lesson to all IP share investors (IAM) US Patents – Decisions CAFC: Appealing BPAI rejections to the Federal Circuit: In re Baggett (nonprecedential) (Patently-O) CAFC: Preliminary injunctions and obviousness in design patent law: Titan Tire Corp v Case New Holland, Inc (Patently-O) District Court N D Illinois: Post-filing assignment cannot create… [read post]
6 Jul 2011, 5:09 am by Susan Brenner
According to the original Complaint, RealTimeBid.Com, LLC (`RTB’) is a limited liability company duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Ohio, having its principal place of business in Holland, Ohio. [read post]
21 Sep 2009, 9:07 am
(ITC 337 Law Blog) An appeal to the new Patent Office Director: Repeal the single sentence rule (Patently-O) ‘Troll Tracker’ defamation suit - trial underway: Albritton v Cisco (Patently-O) (EDTexweblog.com) (The Prior Art) (The Prior Art) Q2 2009 sees record number of US green patents (Green Patent Blog)   US Patents – Decisions CAFC: District Court’s summary judgment opinion found to be inconsistent with its own claim construction: Vita-Mix… [read post]
4 May 2016, 7:42 am by Ben
 The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear Star Athletica, LLC v. [read post]
17 May 2016, 4:28 am
 According to the French IP code, M&S was not entitled to demand the cancellation of those goods and services not cited against it by ISMS, and therefore the claims for cancellation should be accepted as far as they apply to those goods and services cited in the infringement claim but rejected for those not so cited.On the validity of CTM 5410998 SIMPLYRecognizing the need to consider the validity of the marks by reference to the average consumer in all EU member states, the court… [read post]
17 Nov 2023, 11:41 am by Kevin LaCroix
Insurers would be required to pay Appian $500 million if the state supreme court rules that Pegasystems should have won. [read post]