Search for: "International Art Co. v. Federal Trade Commission"
Results 81 - 100
of 175
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jun 2011, 9:33 pm
In the recent decision Ackers v Saad Investments Co Ltd, the Federal Court undertook a careful examination of what needs to be established to satisfy one of the central concepts of the Model Law: the location of an insolvent company’s “centre of main interests” (COMI). [read post]
13 Jun 2011, 4:14 am
Becton Dickinson (Ladas & Parry) (Patently-O) (Patent Law Practice Center) (WHDA) (Inventive Step) (Patent Docs) (IP Whiteboard) BPAI invalidates Ablaise patent…again: Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. [read post]
26 May 2011, 10:58 pm
International Business Machines, Corp. [read post]
19 May 2011, 9:15 am
” The Commission cited, among others, the Federal Circuit’s decisions in Riverwood Int’l Corp. v. [read post]
17 Mar 2011, 8:08 am
The International Trade Commission (ITC) provides one such alternative. [read post]
10 Mar 2011, 2:39 pm
Over the past ten years, the funneling of patent appeals to the Federal Circuit has resulted in the court hearing over four thousand patent infringement appeals in addition to its review of patent decisions from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “Patent Office”) and the International Trade Commission.[4] The large number of cases provides the court with the opportunity to rapidly shift the law, even when each case presents… [read post]
10 Mar 2011, 11:09 am
Professor Christopher Cotropia, from the University of Richmond, then presented an empirical paper that showed that the Federal Circuit’s Kyocera case did not have the expected effect of reducing the number of filings by patent owners to prevent the importation of infringing goods through the International Trade Commission. [read post]
14 Jan 2011, 9:20 am
The lesson being if you are going to die, die in Indiana.Raskopf cited the case of CMG Worldwide v The Upper Deck Co., Inc case where he acted for the defendant. [read post]
10 Jan 2011, 3:20 am
Co. [read post]
26 Dec 2010, 9:39 pm
Seve Trophy loses appeal – General Court judgment T-192/09 (Class 46) But is it art? [read post]
29 Nov 2010, 12:23 am
The Ohio Willow Wood Co. [read post]
3 Nov 2010, 6:39 pm
International Trade Commission alleging that Vizio and a number of other manufacturers had violated Section 337 through the importation into the United States of digital television sets that infringed Funai’s U.S. [read post]
27 Oct 2010, 8:30 am
Patent Nos. 5,827,698 (the “ ‘698 patent”) and 6,040,160 (the “ ‘160 patent”).[8] In April of 2006, Ajinomoto filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) alleging that the importation of various lysine feed products was a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, 19 U.S.C. [read post]
17 Oct 2010, 6:44 pm
Under the Trade Act of 1974, the International Trade Commission was given the power to bar importation of articles that would infringe U.S. patents. [read post]
24 Sep 2010, 1:15 pm
International Trade Commission, 598 F.3d 1294 (Fed. [read post]
23 Sep 2010, 9:58 am
They include most of the leadership of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (including that agency’s executive director as well as the directors of its Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and Office of Enforcement), virtually all of the leadership of the Social Security Administration, the executive directors of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Federal Trade Commission, as well as the general counsels of the Chemical Safety… [read post]
5 Aug 2010, 1:07 pm
Citing Stump v. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 12:25 am
-Conn (IPKat) (EPLAW) EWHC (Ch): All threats, no action…: Best Buy Co Inc and another v Worldwide Sales Corporation Espana SL (IPKat) United States US General California’s Trade Secret disclosure statute doesn’t apply in Federal Court – or maybe it does (IP ADR Blog) US Patents USPTO wants to change restriction practice (Patent Baristas) The post-Bilski landscape: Why some tried, but failed, to ban ‘business… [read post]
5 Jul 2010, 7:59 pm
Brown and David Matusow, Bahr, et al. v. [read post]
5 Jul 2010, 6:31 am
Federal Court confirms Mars has exclusive right to use colour ‘Whiskas purple’ for cat food: Mars Australia Pty Ltd (formerly Effem Foods Pty Ltd) v Société des Produits Nestlé SA (Australian Trade Marks Law Blog) FCAFC: On appeal, simulated flames from direct light found infringing: Bitech Engineering v Garth Living Pty Ltd (Patentology) (Mallesons Stephen Jaques) Prison for infringement of IP rights in Australia! [read post]
