Search for: "Joint Motion for Parties' Proposed Briefing Schedule"
Results 101 - 120
of 130
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Nov 2010, 2:16 am
Sorry, Michael Enright – Star copyright editorial (Excess Copyright) Access Copyright changes counsel in proposed post-secondary 1,300% increase tariff; Board rules on status of 99 objectors (Excess Copyright) (Excess Copyright) (Excess Copyright) (Michael Geist) University of Alberta looking to walk away from Access Copyright (Michael Geist) Trade-mark update: Indigo wins in battle for IREWARDS: Indigo v. [read post]
28 Oct 2010, 6:32 am
In their joint motion, the parties proposed to the court that the case be briefed in November through February, with the petitioners' brief due on November 30, 2010 and the SEC's brief due on January 19, 2011. [read post]
10 Sep 2010, 11:50 am
The judge previously requested a joint plan from the parties with regard to timing and scheduling for the cases, but ultimately rejected the proposals from both sides. [read post]
10 Sep 2010, 11:50 am
The judge previously requested a joint plan from the parties with regard to timing and scheduling for the cases, but ultimately rejected the proposals from both sides. [read post]
11 Jul 2010, 8:33 pm
The Settling Party agrees to pay EPA $82,000 in reimbursement of certain response costs related to the performance of the work incurred by EPA at the Site. [read post]
9 Jul 2010, 9:36 am
- Engagement- Shared/joint expert? [read post]
7 Jul 2010, 11:07 am
,Real Parties in Interest.G042911(Super. [read post]
3 May 2010, 9:30 pm
The settling parties are the U.S. [read post]
21 Mar 2010, 12:19 pm
The inspections also found spill prevention briefings were not scheduled and conducted periodically. [read post]
4 Mar 2010, 7:59 am
According to the Order, the parties submitted a joint proposed procedural schedule on February 26, 2010 agreeing on almost all dates “except as to whether the ALJ should hold a Markman hearing. [read post]
1 Feb 2010, 6:36 am
Khuzami outlined the following plans: Creating a “Seaboard Report” for individuals — that is, a public policy statement that will set forth standards under which to evaluate an individual’s cooperation; Expediting the process by which the Division Director is delegated authority to submit immunity requests to the Department of Justice; Exploring ways to provide witnesses early on in appropriate cases an oral assurance that the Division does not intend to file charges against… [read post]
15 Jan 2010, 2:33 am
After the reply brief is filed, the parties have seven days to file a joint claim construction chart setting out each claim term, the proposed constructions, and the parties' proposal for a claim construction hearing. [read post]
2 Dec 2009, 1:47 pm
All parties should use their best efforts to avoid unduly duplicative submissions and propound joint discovery requests to the end of minimizing the need for any other party to perform repetitive file searches or interviews of employees and agents on the same topics. [read post]
14 Oct 2009, 4:13 am
Following up on posts analyzing the Northern District's Local Patent Rules over the last several weeks (click here (for analysis of the Rules, here (for a comparison of the enacted Rules to the Proposed Rules) and here (arguing that the Rules will increase patent litigations in the Northern District of Illinois) for those posts and here for a copy of the Rules), I have prepared the following chart laying out the schedule… [read post]
9 Oct 2009, 10:04 am
The USPTO also announced that it will file a joint motion with GlaxoSmithKline – one of two plaintiffs in the Tafas v. [read post]
2 Oct 2009, 3:29 am
I will also post a schedule of the timing contemplated by the Rules in a table format, but for now here are highlights of the significant changes between the Proposed Rules and the Rules as enacted yesterday: Some of the more significant changes the Court made from the Proposed Rules to the LPR as enacted: Early Dispositive Motions (LPR 1.1 & 6.1): A statement was added in LPR 1.1 that the Court may defer any… [read post]
1 Oct 2009, 6:54 pm
Parties claiming patent infringement have twenty-eight days to file response briefs. [read post]
18 Sep 2009, 9:00 am
The court will then order dates by which the parties exchange exhibit and witness lists, create joint statement of evidence, trial binders, pretrial motions, briefs, and proposed final documents. [read post]
5 Aug 2009, 3:38 am
Interestingly, a comment was made at the session pointing out that the Court has not decided how to schedule briefing when both parties assert patents against each other, that is, when each party is a patent holder and each party is an accused infringer. [read post]
8 May 2009, 9:44 am
Motion, what is it? [read post]
