Search for: "QUANTUM ALLIANCE"
Results 81 - 86
of 86
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 May 2009, 5:20 pm
Todd Dickinson’s comments at Bio Conference (IAM) The Charles Rivers Ventures connection – CRV stakes in RPX Corp, Thinkfire and Intellectual Ventures (IAM) Obama Administration tackling patent backlog (IP Watchdog) Patent examiners told to issue patents (IP Watchdog) More funding needed for patent granting authority (IP Watchdog) Short note on patentability of product-by-process claims – Newman J’s opinion in 1985 case In re Thorpe: Abbott v Sandoz (Peter… [read post]
27 Feb 2009, 7:00 am
(SOLO Independent IP Practitioners) New Practice Note PAN 01/09 on trade mark registrations for ‘shopping centre services’ (Class 46) (IPKat) United States US General Seattle’s Gary Locke may become new Commerce Secretary (Seattle Trademark Lawyer) (Inventive Step) (Intellectual Property Watch) (Peter Zura's 271 Patent Blog) (Managing Intellectual Property) (Hal Wegner) International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) calls for India, 12… [read post]
4 Feb 2009, 12:04 pm
I do not foresee quantum leaps in technology capable of overcoming this brute disadvantage, particularly because search is as much about personalized customer service as it is about technical principles of information organization and retrieval. [read post]
23 Jan 2009, 1:00 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Think Tank Global Week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included: Obama Administration orders reconsideration/suspension of new rules (Hal Wegner) (Peter Zura's 271 Patent Blog) (Patent Docs) (Patently-O) Manufacturing Alliance on Patent Policy: Apportionment of damages provision will have adverse effects (Patent Docs) (IAM) (Law360) (Inventive Step) ECJ: Promotional items do not qualify for… [read post]
8 Feb 2008, 7:00 pm
Here is IP Think Tank’s weekly selection of top intellectual property news breaking in the blogosphere and internet. [read post]
30 Jan 2008, 6:28 am
Although the requirement of "likelihood" of success on the merits has been cast in terms of "substantial likelihood" and "significant possibility," the Eleventh Circuit has recognized that such qualifiers do not alter the quantum of proof necessary to satisfy this requirement. [read post]
