Search for: "Diamond Decisions Inc"
Results 161 - 180
of 453
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Feb 2016, 1:53 am
Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Genentech Inc. [read post]
19 Feb 2016, 11:57 am
It has been a little over two years since the Supreme Court issued its decision in Bauman v. [read post]
15 Jan 2016, 5:22 am
In re The Hyman Companies, Inc., Serial No. 85483397 (January 14, 2015) [not precedential].A mark is deceptive if: (1) it contains matter that is misdescriptive of the character, quality, function, composition or use of the goods; (2) prospective purchasers would be likely to believe that the misdescription actually describes the goods; and (3) the misdescription would be likely to affect a significant portion of the relevant consumers’ decision to purchase the goods.The… [read post]
13 Oct 2015, 10:01 pm
While Morrell and her fellow apple growers wouldn’t want anything but the safest decision on this issue, she pointed out that “at this time, there is no data that shows whether evaporative cooling with water that is high in bacteria leads to bacterial presence on the apples at harvest. [read post]
6 Oct 2015, 7:40 pm
Cir. 2014), though it has its roots in Diamond v. [read post]
29 Sep 2015, 8:51 pm
Last month, Sequenom filed a petition for rehearing en banc, arguing that the panel's decision in June was inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decisions in Diamond v. [read post]
28 Sep 2015, 9:59 pm
Last month, Sequenom filed a petition for rehearing en banc, arguing that the panel's decision in June was inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decisions in Diamond v. [read post]
24 Sep 2015, 7:24 am
Sequenom, Inc. [read post]
23 Sep 2015, 9:59 pm
Last month, Sequenom filed a petition for rehearing en banc, arguing that the panel's decision in June was inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decisions in Diamond v. [read post]
22 Sep 2015, 9:59 pm
Last month, Sequenom filed a petition for rehearing en banc, arguing that the panel's decision in June was inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decisions in Diamond v. [read post]
20 Sep 2015, 8:50 pm
Last month, Sequenom filed a petition for rehearing en banc, arguing that the panel's decision in June was inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decisions in Diamond v. [read post]
17 Sep 2015, 9:02 pm
Last month, Sequenom filed a petition for rehearing en banc, arguing that the panel's decision in June was inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decisions in Diamond v. [read post]
16 Sep 2015, 9:59 pm
Last month, Sequenom filed a petition for rehearing en banc, arguing that the panel's decision in June was inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decisions in Diamond v. [read post]
15 Sep 2015, 9:17 pm
Last month, Sequenom filed a petition for rehearing en banc, arguing that the panel's decision in June was inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decisions in Diamond v. [read post]
14 Sep 2015, 9:59 pm
Last month, Sequenom filed a petition for rehearing en banc, arguing that the panel's decision in June was inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decisions in Diamond v. [read post]
8 Sep 2015, 9:59 pm
Last month, Sequenom filed a petition for rehearing en banc, arguing that the panel's decision in June was inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decisions in Diamond v. [read post]
Amicus Briefs in Support of Sequenom's Petition for Rehearing En Banc: Professors Lefstin and Menell
6 Sep 2015, 9:59 pm
Last month, Sequenom filed a petition for rehearing en banc, arguing that the panel's decision in June was inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decisions in Diamond v. [read post]
3 Sep 2015, 9:59 pm
On August 13, Sequenom filed a petition for rehearing en banc, arguing that the panel's decision in June was inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decisions in Diamond v. [read post]
30 Aug 2015, 5:52 pm
Sequenom, Inc. [read post]
18 Aug 2015, 9:53 pm
Last week, Sequenom filed a petition for rehearing en banc, arguing that the panel's decision in June was inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decisions in Diamond v. [read post]
