Search for: "Icon Health & Fitness Inc."
Results 121 - 140
of 221
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Jul 2014, 7:12 am
Icon Health & Fitness Inc. [read post]
17 Jul 2014, 7:19 am
Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. [read post]
16 Jul 2014, 7:08 am
Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1749 (April 29, 2014), the court granted plaintiff's motion to reconsider an earlier order denying plaintiff's motion for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
10 Jul 2014, 11:34 am
ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1749 (2014) and Highmark, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Jul 2014, 7:21 am
ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1749 (2014)] and [Highmark, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Jul 2014, 6:02 am
ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., Docket No. 12-1184; Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on April 29, 2014. [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 12:40 pm
Icon Health & Fitness Inc. [read post]
17 Jun 2014, 10:46 pm
ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., (S.Ct. 2014), an exceptional case in which the court may, in its discretion, award attorney’s fees is simply one that “stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigating position (considering both the governing law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated. [read post]
5 Jun 2014, 6:05 pm
ICON Health & Fitness, 134 S. [read post]
5 Jun 2014, 6:05 pm
ICON Health & Fitness, 134 S. [read post]
3 Jun 2014, 7:45 am
Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. and Highmark v. [read post]
22 May 2014, 2:11 pm
Icon Health & Fitness Inc. and Highmark Inc. v. [read post]
15 May 2014, 9:06 am
ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., the Court defined an “exceptional” case entitled to fee-shifting to be “simply one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigating position (considering both the governing law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated. [read post]
8 May 2014, 7:19 pm
Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., and Highmark Inc. v. [read post]
8 May 2014, 1:28 pm
Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., Octane had been sued by ICON for infringing on ICON’s patent for adjustable elliptical machines. [read post]
8 May 2014, 9:54 am
Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 2014 U.S. [read post]
8 May 2014, 9:21 am
ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., was the primary decision because the Court explained that the ruling formed the basis of their decision in Highmark, Inc. v. [read post]
5 May 2014, 8:52 am
ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U. [read post]
5 May 2014, 4:15 am
ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. broadened the “exceptional case” rubric used to determine when an award of attorney fees is appropriate in a district court patent dispute. [read post]
4 May 2014, 3:14 am
ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. [read post]
