Search for: "State v. Grays"
Results 1621 - 1640
of 1,994
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Mar 2010, 7:11 pm
Int'l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc (Gray on Claims) District Court N D Illinois: ‘Consisting of’ and ‘consisting essentially of’ are not substantially identical: Kim v Earthgrains Co. [read post]
1 Mar 2010, 7:11 pm
Int'l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc (Gray on Claims) District Court N D Illinois: ‘Consisting of’ and ‘consisting essentially of’ are not substantially identical: Kim v Earthgrains Co. [read post]
28 Feb 2010, 11:59 pm
Part V. [read post]
26 Feb 2010, 3:00 am
Amazon.com (Washington State Patent Law Blog) US Patents – Lawsuits and strategic steps Activision - Patent Compliance Group files qui tam action against Activision (Patent Arcade) Google - Inside Google’s first patent trial: Function Media, L.L.C. v. [read post]
26 Feb 2010, 3:00 am
Amazon.com (Washington State Patent Law Blog) US Patents – Lawsuits and strategic steps Activision - Patent Compliance Group files qui tam action against Activision (Patent Arcade) Google - Inside Google’s first patent trial: Function Media, L.L.C. v. [read post]
22 Feb 2010, 3:35 am
– Adrian Jacobs estate claim his character Willy the Wizard has been into Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (IP Whiteboard) United States US General US business calls for IP enforcement ‘surge’, seeks new legislation this year (IP Watch) PK and EFF joint submission: Special 301 review should respect copyright balance and increase transparency (Public Knowledge) (Michael Geist) (Public Knowledge) US Patents Appealing BPAI rejections in ex parte… [read post]
22 Feb 2010, 3:35 am
– Adrian Jacobs estate claim his character Willy the Wizard has been into Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (IP Whiteboard) United States US General US business calls for IP enforcement ‘surge’, seeks new legislation this year (IP Watch) PK and EFF joint submission: Special 301 review should respect copyright balance and increase transparency (Public Knowledge) (Michael Geist) (Public Knowledge) US Patents Appealing BPAI rejections in ex parte… [read post]
18 Feb 2010, 3:51 am
In Henry and Mitchell v Henry [2010] UKPC 3, the Privy Council have given further consideration to the doctrine of proprietary estoppel. [read post]
18 Feb 2010, 3:51 am
In Henry and Mitchell v Henry [2010] UKPC 3, the Privy Council have given further consideration to the doctrine of proprietary estoppel. [read post]
15 Feb 2010, 4:04 am
China considered sold ‘within the United States’ for infringement purposes: SEB S.A. v. [read post]
8 Feb 2010, 11:45 am
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, January 25, 2010 Gray v. [read post]
8 Feb 2010, 11:45 am
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, January 25, 2010 Gray v. [read post]
8 Feb 2010, 4:02 am
Travel Caddy, Inc (not precedential) (Gray On Claims) (PATracer) (Patently-O) CAFC: Egyptian Goddess clogs up the CAFC: International Seaway Trading Corp. v. [read post]
4 Feb 2010, 1:27 am
Involvement in an accident going to or from work typically is not job-related for the purposes of receiving workers' compensation benefitsMatter of Littles v New York State Dept. of Corrections, 61 AD3d 1266While en route to her job at a prison, Wandell Littles was injured when she was involved in an automobile accident approximately 10 feet from the entrance to the facility. [read post]
4 Feb 2010, 12:21 am
Gray [read post]
1 Feb 2010, 6:36 am
Editor’s Note: Eduardo Gallardo is a partner focusing on mergers and acquisitions at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 3:51 am
(IP finance) The UK IP Office issues a Virgin trademark ruling that contrasts the Israel approach (IP Factor) EWHC (Pat): Article 27 (to prevent parallel proceedings in different member states) requires flexible approach to meaning of ‘same parties’: Mölnlycke Health Care AB (MAB), Mölnlycke Health care Limited (MUK) v. [read post]
23 Jan 2010, 4:00 am
(IP Whiteboard) FrangranceNet - Keyword ad and product shots case survives motion to dismiss - FragranceNet v. [read post]
19 Jan 2010, 8:00 am
In County of Dallas v. [read post]
18 Jan 2010, 10:26 am
Textron Inc. v. [read post]
