Search for: "Lourie v. Lourie" Results 81 - 100 of 611
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Aug 2012, 12:03 pm by Eric Guttag
The other point that also bears repeating (and quoting) from the majority opinion in the AMP remand is Judge Lourie’s response to the so-called “preemption” question: "Plaintiffs argue here that they are preempted from using the patented DNA molecules. [read post]
21 Mar 2016, 12:03 pm by Gene Quinn
It is manifestly important: A host of judges and amici have stressed that the result below is untenable— invalidating previously irreproachable inventions and precipitating what Judge Lourie called “a crisis of patent law and medial innovation. [read post]
3 Mar 2014, 9:06 pm by Patent Docs
In a non-precedential ruling, the Federal Circuit panel of Judges Lourie, Dyk, and Wallach affirmed. [read post]
16 Dec 2008, 5:16 am
The decision, by Judge Newman, joined by Judges Lourie and Bryson, was unremarkable and should remain so, unless the Supreme Court were to grant certiorari and work more of its particular brand of mischief on U.S. patent law. [read post]
4 May 2009, 8:10 pm
As a review, in an decision authored by Judge Newman, and joined by Judge Lourie, the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC's interpretation of the interactions of 19 U.S.C. [read post]
25 Jul 2019, 9:59 pm by Patent Docs
The problem is illustrated by the comments provided by two members of the Court, Judges Lourie and O'Malley, in their concurrence and dissent, respectively, with the Court's per curiam denial of en banc review in Athena Diagnostics Inc. v. [read post]
17 Feb 2016, 9:37 pm by Patent Docs
Supreme Court for certiorari to review the Federal Circuit's decision that reversed the District Court in Amgen v. [read post]
3 Aug 2020, 2:15 pm by Rebecca Tapscott
The CAFC also issued a precedential modified opinion of its October 3, 2019 opinion in American Axle & Manufacturing v. [read post]
21 May 2013, 8:54 pm by Patent Docs
By Michael Borella -- A previous post presented the background of this case, as well as Judge Lourie's plurality concurrence, and a second post addressed Chief Judge Rader's concurrence-in-part and dissent-in-part. [read post]