Search for: "Microsoft Corporation, Inc." Results 121 - 140 of 931
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Mar 2013, 6:28 am by Gene Quinn
On October 31, 2012, Acacia Research Corporation (Nasdaq:ACTG) announced that its subsidiaries... [read post]
14 Sep 2010, 9:50 am by Josh Wright
Separately, McChesney provides an example: Consider a case like that against Salton, Inc., for resale price maintenance of its George Foreman grills, provisionally settled in September 2002. [read post]
28 Aug 2009, 8:11 am
Microsoft Corporation, Intel Corporation, Marvell Technology Group Ltd., Marvell Semiconductor Inc., Hewlett Packard Co., et al. [read post]
18 May 2009, 4:00 am
Yang and Microsoft Corp. v. 9038-3746 Quebec Inc., evidences a recent trend toward substantial damage awards in counterfeit goods cases. [read post]
19 Apr 2011, 5:10 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
Mills Alloys, Inc., 67 F.2d 807, 809; cf. [read post]
2 Dec 2006, 2:19 pm
Press release: ZANTAZ EAS for Exchange Will Help Companies Meet Corporate Policy, Regulatory Compliance and Legal Discovery Requirements PLEASANTON, CA — (MARKET WIRE) — November 30, 2006 — ZANTAZ, Inc., the global leader in content archiving and electronic discovery solutions, today announced that its industry-leading Enterprise Archive Solution (EAS) will be available for Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 in the first quarter 2007. [read post]
5 Nov 2013, 1:25 pm by Florian Mueller
Apple submitted it "in support of motions for declaratory judgment filed by Google Inc., Microsoft Corporation, Yahoo! [read post]
7 Dec 2015, 6:08 am by Dennis Crouch
Pulse Electronics, Inc., et al., No. 14-1513 (enhanced damages) (linked to Stryker) Stryker Corporation, et al. v. [read post]
11 May 2011, 4:32 am by Jenna Greene
Big Deal: Looking to expand its online communications offerings, Microsoft Corporation said Tuesday that it will pay $8.5 billion for Skype Global, the Internet voice and video chat service, AmLaw Daily reports. [read post]
29 Mar 2013, 8:24 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
§ 271(f)),as recognized in Microsoft Corp. v. [read post]