Search for: "Doe Nos."
Results 1501 - 1520
of 2,061
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 May 2011, 8:14 am
Judge Brown opines that (i) Rule 12(b)(6) does not apply to SOX complaints, but ALJs can use OALJ summary decision procedure (29 C.F.R. [read post]
26 May 2011, 3:56 pm
Order No. 13 Respondents argued that the ‘732 patent is invalid because it does not name the correct inventors, citing deposition testimony from the two named inventors which allegedly shows that neither contributed to the design of the wind turbine, arm, or light fixture depicted in the patent. [read post]
26 May 2011, 1:25 pm
Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, Case Nos. 10-4699 & 11-1099. [read post]
26 May 2011, 3:51 am
Law Lessons from In Re: Application Chevron, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, Nos. 10-4699 and 11-1099, May 25th, 2011: A party invoking the crime-fraud exception in an attempt to vitiate the attorney-client privilege must make a prima facie showing that (1) the client was committing or intending to commit a fraud or crime, and (2) the attorney-client communications were in furtherance of that alleged crime or fraud. [read post]
24 May 2011, 4:02 pm
., Nos. 2009-1299, 2009-1347, 2011 WL 1815978 (Fed. [read post]
23 May 2011, 8:51 pm
Patent Nos. 5,136,336 (“Worp”), 5,218,759 (“Juskey”), and 4,868,349 (“Chia”). [read post]
23 May 2011, 6:09 pm
Yeddyurappa & Ors., CIVIL APPEAL NOs.4444-4476 OF 2011). [read post]
23 May 2011, 1:54 pm
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in In Re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation, Case Nos. 10-2077, 10-2078, 10-2079. [read post]
23 May 2011, 8:44 am
In a lengthy and complex judgment, a bare majority of five Justices held that the statute does not require a claimant to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was actually innocent of the offence in question. [read post]
23 May 2011, 5:05 am
In In re Lehman Brothers Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation, Nos. 10-0712-cv, 10-0898-cv, 10-1288-cv, 2011 WL 1778726 (2d Cir. [read post]
23 May 2011, 5:00 am
Question: Does the Fourth Circuit's ruling on the recovery permissible under section 502(a)(3) need to be thought through again under the Supreme Court's ruling in Cigna Corp. v. [read post]
22 May 2011, 1:08 pm
The law does not require that patent assignments be recorded. [read post]
22 May 2011, 5:49 am
The Court of Appeal has described this as an anomaly (Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others (Nos 4 and 5) [2002] QB 783 at 824). [read post]
19 May 2011, 9:15 am
Patent Nos. 6,243,254 (the ‘254 patent), 6,014,309 (the ‘309 patent), and 6,266,229 (the ‘229 patent). [read post]
18 May 2011, 1:39 pm
What does it mean? [read post]
17 May 2011, 4:34 pm
Patent No. 5,597,767 (the ‘767 patent) does not incorporate by reference U.S. [read post]
16 May 2011, 9:43 am
Patent Nos. 6,031,964 (the ‘964 patent) and RE38,911 (the ‘911 patent). [read post]
15 May 2011, 10:00 pm
When does being not guilty make you innocent? [read post]
12 May 2011, 4:34 pm
The court also found that Mylan and Barr infringe the claims, but Anchen does not. [read post]
11 May 2011, 11:26 am
Arzberger, Nos. 08 Cr. 894 (AKH), 08 Mag. 1876 (JCF), 2008 WL 5453739, at *10–11 (S.D.N.Y. [read post]
