Search for: "Microsoft Corporation et al" Results 121 - 140 of 223
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Dec 2010, 1:18 pm
Motorola et al (CAFC 2010-1266) precedential The winning argument at district court was that six companies "each have the right to grant licenses to the patents in the field of Wireless Handsets. [read post]
7 Jan 2011, 3:11 am by Kelly
Belkin International, Inc., et. al (Docket Report) District Court C D California: Diligence asserting inequitable conduct measured from date prior art was known to be relevant, not date prior art was known to exist: Aten International Co. [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 8:16 am by law shucks
Microsoft and Dell Corporation, reversed the District Court’s summary judgement against an Alcatel-Lucent patent on web-technology, Federal Circuit, Spring 2008 Forest Laboratories and Lundbeck v. [read post]
18 Jun 2010, 10:10 pm by Lyle Denniston
  And, they argue, the law that mainly was used against them — the sweeping anti-racketeering law that Congress passed in 1970 (the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO) was pulled completely out of shape to try to make it cover a half-century of corporate conduct. [read post]
13 Jul 2015, 3:51 am
* Washington Redskins' Trade Marks tackled: disparaging, says District CourtJani writes up Pro-Football Inc v Amanda Blackhorse et al. [read post]
27 Jul 2015, 9:35 am
| Pro-Football Inc v Amanda Blackhorse et al. [read post]
20 Jul 2015, 2:43 am
| Pro-Football Inc v Amanda Blackhorse et al. [read post]
1 Jan 2023, 12:58 pm by D. Casey Flaherty
See Reinhard Messenböck, et al., “How Complicated Is Your Company,” BCG, Jan 16, 2018. [read post]
9 Jun 2023, 11:43 am by Aidan Smith
Finally, Big Tech firms like IBM, Google, and Microsoft are also boosters of precision agriculture. [read post]
29 Jul 2010, 11:00 pm by Kelly
Microsoft issue staff with Windows 7 phones (Property, intangible) US Patents – Decisions District Court Delaware – Amazon’s infringing use of One-Click technology didn’t irreparably harm digital identity business sufficient to warrant permanent injunction: Cordance Corporation v. [read post]