Search for: "Core v. U.s.*" Results 81 - 100 of 1,058
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Jan 2024, 10:20 am by Eric Goldman
Although in Kremen we held that updating records in a document did not defeat a finding of a property interest, Plaintiffs’ argument elides the core inquiry of the “capable of precise definition” part. [read post]
14 Dec 2015, 3:15 pm by Dennis Crouch
”[2] Here, Samsung raises two questions that go to the core of the power of design patent rights. [read post]
17 Sep 2015, 7:12 am by Docket Navigator
[Plaintiff's CEO/inventor] spent years conducting clinical trials of [plaintiff's] forehead thermometer to overcome skepticism among medical professionals who believed that measuring temperature at the forehead could not lead to accurate estimates of core body temperature. . . . [read post]
27 Jun 2015, 2:50 pm by MOTP
It would seem that the dominant jurisdiction doctrine cannot furnish an answer - and would not provide a basis for abatement - because the two fora do not have co-extensive authority under an arbitration agreement that makes some claims arbitrable but not others, - at least not in a scenario where both types of claims are present in the same dispute and are contemporaneously pursued, in the respective fora, but involve a common core of case-determinative facts. [read post]