Search for: "Marks v. DISTRICT COURT, ETC."
Results 81 - 100
of 410
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Jan 2011, 3:19 am
Bausch & Lomb, Inc (Docket Report) District Court N D Illinois: Release of false marking claims applies to all products marked with patent mumbers: Simonian v. [read post]
30 May 2017, 8:45 am
The district court granted summary judgment as to M&G’s copyright and trademark claims. [read post]
4 Jun 2021, 12:06 pm
Clark v. [read post]
15 Dec 2009, 5:19 am
Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Mark W. [read post]
21 Feb 2013, 11:11 pm
Wandsworth backed away from that case, but the view of some, including me, at the time, was that the terms were effectively a personal obligation, not a term of the tenancy.We have just heard about a County Court judgment in a case, LB Wandsworth v Maggott, in Wandsworth County Court, where exactly that was held. [read post]
3 Aug 2009, 1:04 am
District Court, District of Massachusetts (Boston). [read post]
23 Dec 2015, 9:03 am
” Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. [read post]
24 Aug 2010, 6:23 am
DeSena v. [read post]
14 Sep 2012, 1:05 pm
The federal district court rejected both claims as a matter of law. [read post]
26 Jun 2009, 2:21 am
Osborne, and thinking about Osborne led me to think about the Court's 1988 decision in Arizona v. [read post]
11 Jan 2012, 6:36 am
The Daigle v. [read post]
8 May 2019, 1:21 pm
Appeal from the 345th District Court of Travis County, No. [read post]
22 Dec 2013, 7:21 am
District Court, 134 S.Ct. 568 (2013) [read post]
20 Apr 2015, 5:04 am
Tillett counterclaimed, and in 2013, the district court preliminarily enjoined Khroma. [read post]
18 Apr 2016, 5:01 am
District Court for the Eastern District of New York 2012); United States v. [read post]
12 May 2012, 10:48 am
(and apparent inspiration for the K-Beech mark) is Kevin Beechum . . . . [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 8:11 am
Virginia and Turner v. [read post]
15 Apr 2015, 5:29 am
The post Britto v. [read post]
3 Aug 2014, 11:34 am
The district court then granted LabCorp's motion for summary judgment. [read post]
13 Apr 2009, 9:41 am
Last week The SPC Blog featured news that The Dutch first instance decision in ratiopharm et al v Lundbeck, concerning the validity of Lundbeck's escitalopram patent (EP 066) had been handed down by the Hague District Court, which held all the claims of Lundbeck's escitalopram patent (and the Dutch Supplementary Protection Certificate which was based upon it) invalid for lack of inventive step. [read post]
