Search for: "Click-to-Call Technologies LP" Results 1 - 20 of 83
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Jan 2024, 9:59 pm by Patent Docs
Click-to-Call Technologies, LP (2020)"; "Return Mail, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Sep 2023, 2:44 pm by Dennis Crouch
Click-to-Call Technologies LP, No. 22-873, focusing on the scope of IPR estoppel under 35 USC 315(e). [read post]
25 Jan 2023, 8:55 am by Greg Lambert
For something we were vetting for p&g, and right then like it clicked, the light bulb clicked like, This is it. [read post]
17 Aug 2022, 2:15 pm by Steve Brachmann
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Click-to-Call Technologies LP v. [read post]
17 Aug 2022, 2:15 pm by Steve Brachmann
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Click-to-Call Technologies LP v. [read post]
24 Feb 2022, 7:33 pm by Scott McKeown
Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, the Court addressed whether § 314(d)—which states that “[t]he determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable”—bars judicial review of the Director’s decision to institute an IPR when that decision is challenged as contrary to § 315(b)’s time prescription. 140 S. [read post]
13 Dec 2020, 3:25 am by Rob Robinson
Legal Support (eDiscovery and Computer Forensics Division)Business Intelligence Associates (BIA) 5-Dec-17HAYSTACK ID LLC (Investee)TCF Capital Funding (Support Of Knox Capital Holdings and Maranon Capital) in Recapitalization (Investor)$17.800,000 30-Nov-17E-STETEY 28-Nov-17AllegoryIntegreon 31-Oct-17Avalon Document Services (Merger)C:Dox (Merger) 23-Oct-17NexLP (Investment)Method Capital and Dundee Venture Capital (Investors)$3,000,000 23-Oct-17HAYSTACKID LLC (Investee)Knox Capital (Investor)… [read post]
19 Nov 2020, 1:37 pm by IPWatchdog
Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, “§ 324(e) prohibits judicial review of SIPCO’s challenge because it is nothing more than a contention that the agency should have refused to institute [covered business method] CBM review. [read post]