Search for: "United States v. Lange" Results 101 - 120 of 285
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Feb 2011, 4:00 pm by Mary Whisner
United States, 320 U.S. 81 (1943), and Korematsu v. [read post]
Recently, the decisions of courts in the United Kingdom (UK) in Unwired Planet v Huawei Technologies (Unwired Planet) and Optis Cellular Technology v Apple (which followed the decision of the UK Supreme Court in Unwired Planet) have given rise to significant debate over the appropriate forum for litigation of disputes in relation to standard essential patents (SEPs). [read post]
1 Jul 2010, 1:05 am by INFORRM
The “argument grounded in jurisprudence” concerns developments in the United States and the Commonwealth (at [66] et seq.). [read post]
11 Nov 2010, 2:10 am by Scott A. McKeown
What role should the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s rules play in defining materiality? [read post]
4 Apr 2014, 8:30 am by Scott A. McKeown
CLS Bank was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States this past Monday. [read post]
13 Mar 2024, 4:00 am by Michael Woods and Gordon LaFortune
For the most part these trade disputes have been with the United States before NAFTA and Canada-U.S. [read post]
1 Sep 2011, 3:10 am by Scott A. McKeown
 Yet, it is important to keep in mind that such claim changes are not effective until the proceeding is concluded.This past Monday in Keung Tse v. eBay, Inc., et al (CAND), the Court considered whether cancellation/amendment  of a claim during patent reexamination mooted an otherwise justiciable dispute, explaining: Only claim 21 of United States patent number 6,665,797 is asserted in this action. [read post]
12 Nov 2010, 2:10 am by Scott A. McKeown
 The post primarily focused on a dispute originating from the California state court, Lockwood v. [read post]
27 Jun 2012, 1:15 am by Scott A. McKeown
Another potentially significant wild card is the Lingamfelter v. [read post]
14 Dec 2011, 1:10 am by Scott A. McKeown
In a case of “turnabout is fair play,” last Friday, a United States District Judge for the District of Connecticut considered, and disregarded, the USPTO’s reexamination analysis of the same prior art in Jacobs Vehicle Equipment Co. v. [read post]