Search for: "Doe Nos."
Results 1541 - 1560
of 2,061
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Mar 2011, 8:34 am
Rajoub, Nos. 09-7109, 09-7158, Slip op. [read post]
21 Mar 2011, 2:38 am
Nos. 2295726 and 2318677 as a trademark for its own goods; that the DVD LOGO is used by third parties; and that the DVD LOGO no longer identifies a single source for the goods with which the mark is used. [read post]
19 Mar 2011, 2:37 am
Under clause 4, the defendant does not have to show that he was actually aware of fact(s) that would have justified an honest person holding the opinion, he need only prove that an honest person could have held the opinion on the basis of ‘a fact which existed at the time the statement complained of was published. [read post]
17 Mar 2011, 6:33 am
The Plan does not condition entitlement to a disability pension on advance application. [read post]
17 Mar 2011, 12:31 am
., Nos. 2010-1117, 2010-1172, 2011 U.S. [read post]
14 Mar 2011, 4:31 am
. , today announced that the United States District Court for the District of Delaware has ruled that Watson's generic version of Fentora® (fentanyl buccal tablets C-II) does not infringe United States Patent Nos. 6,200,604 or 6,974,590 (the '604 and '590 Patents) and that the '604 and '590 Patents are invalid. [read post]
11 Mar 2011, 8:03 am
Whirlpool has now replied by requesting reexamination of those patents (see inter partes Request Nos. (4), (5) & (6)). [read post]
11 Mar 2011, 8:03 am
Whirlpool has now replied by requesting reexamination of those patents (see inter partes Request Nos. (4), (5) & (6)). [read post]
10 Mar 2011, 9:14 am
Rogers, Jr. issued public versions of Order Nos. 16, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, and 26 in Certain Digital Imaging Devices and Related Software (Inv. [read post]
9 Mar 2011, 10:17 am
Library Lectures, nos. 21-28, pp. 63-79. [read post]
8 Mar 2011, 3:39 pm
Patent No. 5,597,767 (the ‘767 patent) does not incorporate by reference U.S. [read post]
7 Mar 2011, 10:22 am
How does the articles of incorporation of a Philippine corporation look like? [read post]
28 Feb 2011, 8:28 am
With respect to the functionality discussed on page 124, n. 19 of the ID, please cite to all evidence of record indicating how this feature operates and how this feature does or does not meet the “a calculating device” limitation of claim 1. [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 1:20 pm
Patent Nos. 6,243,254 (the ‘254 patent), 6,014,309 (the ‘309 patent), and 6,266,229 (the ‘229 patent). [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 5:49 am
Murdock, Civil Action Nos. 2:10-cv-01332, 2:10-cv-01333 (S.D.W.Va. [read post]
22 Feb 2011, 4:51 pm
Patent Nos. 6,212,343 (the ‘343 patent), 6,209,048 (the ‘048 patent), 6,388,771 (the ‘771 patent) and 5,746,866 (the ‘866 patent) in the investigation that was based on a complaint filed by Ricoh Company, Ltd., Ricoh Americas Corporation, and Ricoh Electronics, Inc (collectively, “Ricoh”). [read post]
21 Feb 2011, 4:07 pm
(Professor Brown notes the English Court of Appeal admitted this in Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd (Nos 2 – 5) [2002] 2 WLR 640 at 653.) [read post]
21 Feb 2011, 1:04 pm
In July 2004, FDA denied two citizen petitions (Docket Nos. [read post]
18 Feb 2011, 10:39 am
On the plus side, the court does finally dismiss the breach of contract claim without leave to amend. [read post]
15 Feb 2011, 4:16 pm
Biomet, Inc., Nos. 09-2858, 10-2639, 2011 U.S. [read post]
