Search for: "Moore v. Holder" Results 141 - 160 of 187
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Jun 2011, 12:01 pm by Rantanen
By Jason Rantanen Boston Scientific Corp. v. [read post]
20 Apr 2011, 8:08 pm
In effect, the patent holder has to persist in enforcement despite prevailing with an injunction in place. [read post]
18 Apr 2011, 8:23 pm
Microsoft then proceeded to pooh-pooh reexam, concluding with this: I don't think it addresses the problem because the fundamental problem is imposing this heightened standard on the jury that has no moorings in the statute and no moorings in common sense. [read post]
28 Mar 2011, 12:00 am by George M. Wallace
Supreme Court in the affirmative action case of United Steelworkers of America v. [read post]
6 Mar 2011, 9:39 pm by Lisa Larrimore Ouellette
" She concludes that genes should be patentable, but only under a narrow claim scope.Part I is about neither patents nor Bilski: Feldman argues that Moore v. [read post]
25 Jan 2011, 3:38 pm by Jason Rantanen
Cir. 2011)Panel: Rader (author) Lourie (concurring in part and dissenting in part), Moore At first glance, Arlington v. [read post]
20 Sep 2010, 1:29 pm by Jason Rantanen
By: Jason Rantanen Fujitsu Ltd. v. [read post]
20 Jun 2010, 9:17 pm by Andrew Raff
” But his opponents believe Moore’s “common sense” will empower copyright holders and take away traditional rights of consumers. [read post]
14 May 2010, 4:19 am
Quattrocchi (Technology & Marketing Law Blog) TTAB finds SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION merely descriptive of marketing services (TTABlog) Trademark holder not entitled to domain name registered years before: National Arbitration Forum decision in Arizona State Trailer Sales, Inc. d/b/a Little Dealer Little Prices RV v. [read post]
14 May 2010, 12:07 am by Michael Geist
  First, thank you to Industry Minister Clement and Canadian Heritage Minister Moore for launching this consultation. [read post]
12 May 2010, 7:02 pm by Erin Miller
Opinion below (5th Circuit) Petition for certiorari Brief in opposition Petitioner’s reply Title: Moore v. [read post]