Search for: "SMITH v ELECTRONIC PARTS INC" Results 141 - 160 of 205
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Jul 2011, 1:44 pm
There were two pieces of prior art over which the patents were claimed to be obvious: the first was a paper referred to as Parmley & Smith, and the second was a conference paper delivered by Professor Smith (of Parmley & Smith fame) in Banbury. [read post]
26 May 2011, 10:54 am by Bexis
The only reason removal is even possible prior to service is due to the advent of electronic case filing and waiver of service rules that could not have been foreseen when the current removal statute was enacted.Id. at *6 (discussing and attempting to analogize to Murphy Brothers, Inc., v. [read post]
30 Mar 2011, 8:55 pm by Craig Robins
Steven Baum, MERSCORP, Inc., et. al., is pending here in the Eastern District of New York. [read post]
17 Dec 2010, 10:58 am
As Professor Burch points out in her post, the pending Smith v. [read post]
24 Nov 2010, 11:44 am by cap95
Congress since 1958: Selected Resources Compiled by Cheryl Smith Cheatham Reference Librarian/Law-Medicine Specialist The Judge Ben C. [read post]
24 Sep 2010, 1:22 pm by Stefanie Levine
  The ‘863 patent is currently the subject of a litigation styled Brass Smith, LLC v. [read post]
25 Aug 2010, 9:36 am by Lawrence Cunningham
Trusted Universal Standards in Electronics Transactions Inc., 2010 WL 1799456 (D. [read post]