Search for: "P Plaintiff"
Results 1661 - 1680
of 13,770
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 May 2019, 3:12 am
P. 56 motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff GC2’s “Kitty Glitter” and “Maid of Money” games, to limit GC2’s recovery of profits and on GC2’s Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) and Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (ICFA) claims in this case involving video slot machines. [read post]
20 Mar 2007, 10:14 am
Judge Diane P. [read post]
27 Jan 2020, 3:11 am
P. 56 motion for summary judgement as to likelihood of confusion and denied declaratory judgment plaintiffs / counter-defendants Crystal Visions and Salt Xchange (collectively “defendants”) counter motion in this Lanham Act case involving EC Grow’s LIGHTNING FAST mark for its ice-melt product and defendants’ LIGHTNING PREMIUM ICE MELTER mark for their ice-melt product. [read post]
31 Mar 2017, 4:57 am
P. 59 motion for new trial in this patent case involving QR codes. [read post]
6 Nov 2017, 4:26 am
Judge Kennelly granted in part plaintiff Ariel Investments’ Fed. [read post]
12 Jun 2019, 4:00 am
P. 12(b)(6) & 12(f) motion to strike portions of plaintiff VitalGo’s Second Amended Complaint (SAC) and to dismiss VitalGo’s claims with prejudice in this Lanham Act and copyright case related to Kreg’s Catalyst Lift Bed products. [read post]
12 May 2021, 3:06 am
P. 30(b)(6) notice in this patent dispute. [read post]
8 Nov 2007, 1:50 am
-->_qacct="p-a5YZ00fCRWn7o";quantserve(); [read post]
9 Mar 2021, 9:02 am
Order, p. 17. [read post]
6 Jul 2011, 9:39 am
But in both Colorado and Minnesota, plaintiffs recently lost. [read post]
25 Oct 2017, 10:00 pm
Delaware, Oct. 5, 2017), Delaware District Judge Leonard P. [read post]
3 Aug 2011, 8:24 pm
The court found that MRE 408 and MRE 409 did not bar admission of the fact that plaintiff received benefits and that plaintiff was entitled to fully explain why she discontinued some of her medical treatment. [read post]
24 Jan 2014, 4:09 pm
(Docket No. 158–1 at p. 65.) [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 9:46 am
P. [read post]
20 Mar 2018, 7:29 am
Entertainment Law Offices of Gordon P. [read post]
1 May 2011, 8:25 am
Defendants argue that “it is undisputed that [p]laintiff was classified as exempt under the FLSA and was paid a fixed salary of $40,000 per year, regardless of the hours he worked. [read post]
8 Jul 2021, 1:41 pm
” See Op. at p. 20.The Superior Court noted that where, as in this Sutherland case and as in the Eichelman case, a plaintiff did not purchase UIM coverage on his motorcycle policy, that plaintiff is not entitled to stack UIM coverage under his separate policies issued by another insurance company on other vehicles, as there was no UIM coverage covering the motorcycle upon which the other policies could stack onto.The court noted that this result is consistent… [read post]
21 Nov 2011, 7:59 am
The plaintiff’s lawyers took the case to the U.S. [read post]
13 Apr 2015, 5:00 am
’” SeeBandru at p. 6. [read post]
13 Jul 2015, 5:31 am
P. 12(b)(1), contending that Verify lacked standing. [read post]
