Search for: "In Re IT Group, Inc., Co."
Results 1101 - 1120
of 2,431
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 May 2014, 5:00 am
Rehabcare Group, Inc., 2008 WL 4657258, at *3 (E.D. [read post]
28 May 2014, 10:31 am
However, in California Motor Transport Co. v. [read post]
28 May 2014, 4:00 am
As my colleague Perell J. put it in High Parklane Consulting Inc. v Royal Group Technologies Ltd., [2007] OJ No 107 (SCJ), at para 36, “[i]t is trite to say that making a living is a stressful activity and that much of life can be nasty and brutish. [read post]
23 May 2014, 2:26 pm
The Board conducted the likelihood of confusion analysis according to the thirteen factors set forth in the case In re E.I. du Pont Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361 (C.C.P.A. 1973). [read post]
13 May 2014, 4:39 pm
However, cases remain pending against the food safety auditing firm of Primus Group Inc, distributor Frontera Produce and other retailers that sold the cantaloupe. [read post]
12 May 2014, 10:01 pm
The conference is being co-hosted by Newbean Capital and the Black Emerald Group and sponsored by Hort Americas. [read post]
9 May 2014, 2:27 pm
In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). [read post]
3 May 2014, 8:56 am
Pfizer, Inc., 196 F. [read post]
25 Apr 2014, 8:01 pm
Group, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Apr 2014, 1:55 pm
Inc. v. [read post]
22 Apr 2014, 11:58 am
Oralabs, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Apr 2014, 2:42 pm
An amicus brief supporting Aereo, filed by a group of thirty-six intellectual property and copyright law professors, argues that Aereo’s service is just like Sony’s VCR: The Aereo system is the functional equivalent of the Sony Betamax: consumers use it to record television programs for subsequent playback to themselves.3 In their opinion, Aereo lacks the necessary volitional conduct to be held directly liable: As in Sony, consumers are using a technology to record copyrighted… [read post]
21 Apr 2014, 12:23 pm
Davita Healthcare Partners, Inc., 2014 U.S. [read post]
13 Apr 2014, 8:59 am
Apotex Inc. v. [read post]
11 Apr 2014, 3:18 pm
See In re E. [read post]
11 Apr 2014, 11:29 am
See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1099 (Fed. [read post]
8 Apr 2014, 4:00 am
Co. v. [read post]
4 Apr 2014, 7:40 pm
In the end, when applying the analysis set forth in the controlling precedent of In re E.I. du pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973), the factors weighed in favor of the Applicant. [read post]
1 Apr 2014, 11:15 am
Limited, non-exclusive right to republished granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc. [read post]
28 Mar 2014, 5:33 pm
Procedural History"Defendants-Appellants Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.; Lupin, Ltd.; Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Actavis, Inc.; Actavis Elizabeth, LLC; Cobalt Laboratories, Inc.; Cobalt Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Sun Pharma Global, Inc; Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.; Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.; Wockhardt Ltd.; and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. [read post]
