Search for: "In Re IT Group, Inc., Co."
Results 941 - 960
of 2,431
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Apr 2011, 8:00 am
Halliburton Co. [read post]
4 Sep 2019, 7:17 am
5826223 FLIGHT BROTHERS FB BREWING CO 5825882 RUN HARD. [read post]
21 Jul 2020, 11:46 am
Turenne Brique et pierre inc. c. [read post]
18 Aug 2008, 12:07 pm
” In re Gilead, at 10334. [read post]
19 Mar 2021, 5:02 am
Long Bow Group, Inc., No. 2007-2075H, 2008 WL 7163549, *4 n.5 (Mass. [read post]
15 Jul 2011, 6:09 am
Co. v. [read post]
27 Jan 2021, 11:22 am
After Ameriprise discovered her misconduct and fired her, Hsu founded American Capital Trading Group LLC and American Capital Republic, Inc., where she sought out and defrauded additional investors. [read post]
29 Mar 2010, 6:58 am
(Business IP and Intangible Asset Blog) US Patents – Decisions Split Federal Circuit panel finds preamble language not limiting: Marrin v Griffin (GRAY on Claims) (Inventive Step) District Court E D Texas: Inequitable conduct expert could not testify as to materiality absent qualification as a person skilled in the art: Advanced Technology Incubator, Inc v Sharp Corporation et al (Docket Report) District Court N D California: Intracompany patent transfer strikes again: Two… [read post]
28 May 2020, 5:29 am
Despite the confusing verbiage, these judicial rulings are a serious deviation from the text of Rule 702, as well as the Advisory Committee Note to the 2000 Amendments, which embraced the standard articulated in In re Paoli, that “any step that renders the analysis unreliable . . . renders the expert’s testimony inadmissible. [read post]
17 Jun 2010, 4:48 am
ZipCar, Inc., 2010 WL 2292467 (D. [read post]
23 Mar 2007, 10:00 pm
Co. of Am. v. [read post]
5 Apr 2015, 7:50 pm
Acuity Specialty Products Group, Inc., 639 F.3d 11, 26 (1st Cir. 2011), with approval, for reversing exclusion of expert witnesses who advanced “weight of the evidence” opinions). [read post]
8 Oct 2019, 10:00 am
Co v. [read post]
5 Mar 2009, 12:02 pm
Medtronic, Inc. [read post]
24 Oct 2022, 4:47 am
” As best I can tell, there are now exactly seven appeals court decisions from three of the four Departments of the Appellate Division explicitly adopting this rule of construction of contract indemnification provisions to cover intra-party disputes unless otherwise specified in the agreement: In re Part 60 RMBS Put – Back Litig.WSA Group, PE., PC v DKI Eng’g & Consulting USA PC (178 AD3d 1320 [3d Dept 2019])Crown Wisteria, Inc. v Cibani (178… [read post]
18 Jan 2018, 10:20 am
Am., Inc., 2015 WL 12991090, at *3 (M.D.N.C. [read post]
4 Jun 2014, 4:00 am
The most-consulted French-language decision was Groupe Enico inc. c. [read post]
5 Nov 2020, 7:35 am
’s V 2.65% $5.3 billion deal to acquire Plaid Inc., a key player in the financial-technology space. [read post]
21 Jan 2009, 7:21 pm
Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368, 1372 n.2 (Fed. [read post]
6 Feb 2009, 7:00 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Think Tank Global Week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included: WTO report confirms USTR lost on key issue of whether China’s thresholds for criminal IP enforcement are too high (Managing Intellectual Property) (IP Justice) (IP Justice) (China Hearsay) (China Law Blog) US: Judd Gregg to be nominated as Secretary of Commerce (Inventive Step) (IP Watchdog) (Peter Zura's 271 Patent Blog)… [read post]
