Search for: "COVINGTON v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" Results 1 - 20 of 36
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Nov 2023, 6:10 am by Unknown
The bill, Ending Corporate Influence on Elections Act of 2023, would “begin to undo” the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. [read post]
11 Jun 2019, 11:15 am by IPWatchdog
United States Postal Service that the U.S. government doesn’t qualify as a “person” for the purposes of petitioning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to institute inter partes review (IPR) proceedings under the America Invents Act (AIA). [read post]
19 Sep 2019, 5:49 am by Robert Brammer
Several of his rulings eventually reached the Supreme Court on appeal, such as the Pentagon Papers case, United States v. [read post]
24 May 2017, 2:22 pm by Aurora Barnes
Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit’s reasoning in United States v. [read post]
19 Feb 2019, 5:56 pm by Dennis Crouch
  The basic question in the case is whether the United States government (here the USPS) counts as “a person who is not the owner of a patent. [read post]
21 Jun 2018, 4:00 pm by Aurora Barnes
United States 17-7793 Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 11:11 am by Ronald Mann
The amicus brief filed by the United States, by contrast, addresses the problem more directly. [read post]
26 Jun 2019, 3:58 am by Edith Roberts
United States “may have opened up a big can of worms. [read post]
7 Jun 2011, 9:18 am by Ronald Mann
  Although the text pretty strongly favors Roche, Stanford and the United States (as amicus) presented a strong policy case for public ownership of publicly funded inventions. [read post]
8 Jun 2017, 10:36 am by John Elwood
United States, 16-7806. [read post]
9 Oct 2014, 9:12 am
”Id. at 1141-42 (various citations omitted).Courts in other states following this general approach are:  Haygood v. [read post]
20 Jun 2018, 5:00 pm by John Elwood
United States without reaching the central question presented by the cert petition, which involved clarifying the rule of Marks v. [read post]