Search for: "The Shaw Group, Inc." Results 101 - 120 of 260
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Mar 2016, 9:46 am by Martin Bader and Ericka Schulz
  The Court relied on the plain reading of “during” to find that § 315(e) actually prohibits future estoppel on grounds for which an IPR was sought, but rejected—even if merely based on redundancy Shaw Industries Group, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Mar 2016, 9:00 am by Dennis Crouch
” = = = = = Notes [1] Shaw Industries Group, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Dec 2015, 9:26 am by Robert B. Milligan
Throughout 2015, Seyfarth Shaw’s dedicated Trade Secrets, Computer Fraud & Non-Competes Practice Group hosted a series of CLE webinars that addressed significant issues facing clients today in this important and ever-changing area of law. [read post]
12 Nov 2015, 11:30 am by John Elwood
Now a whole new group of lawyers faces the familiar situation of how to make the important decision about who gets to argue before the Court. [read post]
Outside of the employment context, the Indiana Court of Appeals in Enhanced Network Solutions Group Inc. v. [read post]
26 Aug 2015, 2:15 pm by Robert B. Milligan and Amy Abeloff
With increased activity regarding proposed federal trade secrets legislation expected next month and for the remainder of the fall Congressional session, Seyfarth Shaw’s dedicated Trade Secrets/Non-Compete group has created a resource which summarizes the proposed legislation, outlines the arguments in favor of and against the legislation, and provides additional resources for our readers’ convenience. [read post]
29 Jul 2015, 11:51 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Seyfarth Shaw has updated its definitive guide to the litigation of wage and hour lawsuits. [read post]
25 Apr 2015, 11:03 am by Schachtman
In the course of identifying this second assumption, the Manual now points out that the doubling argument turns on applying “an average risk for the group” to each individual in the group. [read post]
20 Mar 2015, 12:01 pm by Cathy Siegner
The Wine Group Inc., et al, alleges six specific legal violations on the part of the defendants and asks for a jury trial. [read post]