Search for: "Parker v. Parker."
Results 1701 - 1720
of 2,563
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Mar 2010, 12:31 pm
BarTex is owned by Florida attorney James "Beau" Parker, who also asserts Harris patents through other holding companies, such as Innovative Patented Technologies and Illinois Computer Research. [read post]
17 Jun 2022, 10:04 am
See Nieves v. [read post]
30 Dec 2014, 6:00 am
Co. v. [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 10:33 am
The Court based this ruling on the definition of process in Section 100 of the Patent Act and its own precedents (from the 1970’s and 1981) in Gottschalk v Benson, Parker v Flook, and Diamond v Diehr. [read post]
14 Oct 2014, 11:40 pm
And DeGregory v. [read post]
3 Apr 2011, 6:08 pm
The article’s argument that “it is obvious that rescinding Section 654 overturns” Parker v. [read post]
24 Oct 2011, 5:00 am
Parker, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP William L. [read post]
21 Feb 2014, 7:48 am
The Court seemingly revived Parker v. [read post]
23 Dec 2014, 12:05 pm
Ltd. v. [read post]
9 Dec 2021, 10:00 am
Since the Alice v. [read post]
4 Jul 2010, 4:16 pm
The Frye test emphasizes "'counting scientists' votes," rather than verifying the soundness of a scientific conclusion (Parker v Mobil Oil Corp., 7 NY3d 434, 447 [2006]). [read post]
18 Jun 2009, 10:04 pm
Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit issued an order denying rehearing en banc in United States v. [read post]
17 Jun 2008, 4:11 pm
Oral arguments were heard yesterday by the Supreme Court in the "robo-call" case, State of Indiana v. [read post]
31 Mar 2020, 9:58 am
Diehr, 450 U.S. 101 at 187; Parker v. [read post]
1 Jun 2011, 7:15 pm
One such meaning, Kazin argued, is accompanying the force, citing Reid v. [read post]
22 Mar 2021, 2:19 am
(5) Is the undertaking given by Mr Parker on behalf of HSLLP unenforceable on the ground of public policy under the doctrine of restraint of trade? [read post]
17 Jan 2022, 10:17 am
The anti-patent-right-expansion policy of Deepsouth was repeated in Parker v. [read post]
13 Feb 2011, 7:56 pm
Parker 2011 U.S. [read post]
29 Oct 2015, 5:30 pm
This is despite the high threshold for injurious falsehood claims, requiring a plaintiff to prove all of the following elements; a false statement about the plaintiff’s goods or business (falsity); publication of the statement by the defendant to a third party; malice; and actual damage (Palmer Bruyn & Parker Pty Ltd v Parsons (2001) 208 CLR 388 [52]). [read post]
11 Jun 2019, 3:51 am
In Parker Drilling Management Services. [read post]
