Search for: "OR Specific, Inc."
Results 1921 - 1940
of 37,638
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Oct 2013, 2:44 am
., Inc., No. 13-cv-00573-RBJ-KMT, 2013 U.S. [read post]
13 Jan 2006, 8:10 am
Earth Resource Mapping, Inc. [read post]
8 Apr 2008, 3:27 pm
Mylan Labs., Inc. after the jump. [read post]
30 Oct 2013, 12:17 pm
Apple Inc., C.A. [read post]
3 Jul 2014, 6:46 am
McCain and See Springtree Properties, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Jun 2013, 3:00 am
YouTube, Inc., YouTube, LLC, and Google, Inc.,07 Civ. 2103 and 3582, decided June 23, 2010 (D.C. [read post]
2 Aug 2016, 12:31 pm
Specifically: The Court dismissed the CLRA claim, with leave to amend. [read post]
16 Dec 2011, 2:49 pm
The passengers contend that the airline employee's representation orally modified the terms of the contract.Analysis: Even if an employee's representations amount to what would generally be an oral modification to a contract, the modification would not have been valid because of the specific language in the non-modification clause. [read post]
14 Mar 2007, 1:50 am
Although the CSA agreed that the HUD regulations did not afford a private right of action, it opined that private parties may be bound by laws specifically incorporated into contracts executed between them. [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 2:49 am
” Specifically, “Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH’s Roxane Inc. will pay $280 million, Abbott will pay $126.5 million and B. [read post]
28 Mar 2022, 3:36 pm
Musk, the world’s richest person, was critical of Twitter Inc. in several tweets in recent days. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 4:17 am
Explorer Enterprises, Inc. [read post]
22 Jun 2012, 9:35 am
Tarkus Imaging, Inc. v. [read post]
2 Aug 2017, 8:31 am
Calcar, Inc. v. [read post]
29 Jul 2013, 4:07 pm
Apple, Inc., C.A. [read post]
21 Feb 2008, 7:16 am
Burton Enterprises, Inc.; Burton Enterprises, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Feb 2008, 7:16 am
Burton Enterprises, Inc.; Burton Enterprises, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Oct 2023, 11:15 am
” Pointing to the specification, the Federal Circuit weighed two disclosures: first, that the specification expressly disclosed embodiments in a GSM or UMTS network, and second, that language from the specification specifically stated “[t]he invention is applicable in any such cellular telecommunication system. [read post]
26 May 2016, 5:32 am
This point is one of several interesting issues recently addressed by GAO in URS Federal Services, Inc., B-412580 et al. [read post]
28 Apr 2010, 7:29 am
Rather, claims should always be read in light of the specification and teachings in the underlying patent. [read post]
