Search for: "E.I DuPont De Nemours and Company" Results 21 - 40 of 114
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Jun 2017, 10:56 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
DuPont De Nemours & Company, the plaintiffs filed an FLSA collective action seeking compensation for unpaid time spent donning and doffing uniforms and safety gear and performing other activities before and after shifts. [read post]
8 Feb 2017, 3:09 am by Dennis Crouch
”) Anticipation/Obviousness: E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company v. [read post]
16 Jan 2017, 5:44 pm by Dennis Crouch
Shell Oil Company, et al., No. 16-713 BPCIA – Notice of Commercial Marketing: Apotex Inc., et al. v. [read post]
14 Nov 2016, 9:16 am by Dennis Crouch
King Drug Company of Florence, Inc., et al., No. 15-1055 (antitrust reverse payment – appeal from the 3rd Cir.) 3. [read post]
13 Oct 2016, 6:50 am by Dennis Crouch
DuPont de Nemours & Company, No. 15-1499 (is proof of a “reasonable expectation of success” necessary to combine references in an obviousness case against a claimed combination invention) Jurisdiction: GeoTag, Inc. v. [read post]
10 Oct 2016, 2:12 pm by Adam R. Long
DuPont De Nemours & Company, the plaintiffs filed an FLSA collective action and Pennsylvania state law class action seeking compensation for unpaid time spent donning and doffing their uniforms and safety gear and performing other activities before and after their shifts. [read post]
28 Sep 2016, 8:39 am by Dennis Crouch
DuPont de Nemours & Company, No. 15-1499 (is proof of a “reasonable expectation of success” necessary to combine references in an obviousness case against a claimed combination invention) Patent Attorney Malpractice: Encyclopaedia Britannica v. [read post]
18 Sep 2016, 6:03 pm by Dennis Crouch
DuPont de Nemours & Company, No. 15-1499 (is proof of a “reasonable expectation of success” necessary to combine references in an obviousness case against a claimed combination invention) Patent Attorney Malpractice: Encyclopaedia Britannica v. [read post]
5 Sep 2016, 6:46 pm by Dennis Crouch
DuPont de Nemours & Company, No. 15-1499 (is proof of a “reasonable expectation of success” necessary to combine references in an obviousness case against a claimed combination invention) Laches: Medinol Ltd. v. [read post]
20 Jul 2016, 5:01 am by Moll Law Group, Ltd
The plaintiff alleged that DuPont (E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.), which sells products including Teflon, Stainmaster carpet, and Gore-tex, continuously dumped carcinogenic waste into the Ohio River, and the company tried to conceal the dangers of C-8. [read post]
20 Jul 2016, 5:01 am by Moll Law Group, Ltd
The plaintiff alleged that DuPont (E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.), which sells products including Teflon, Stainmaster carpet, and Gore-tex, continuously dumped carcinogenic waste into the Ohio River, and the company tried to conceal the dangers of C-8. [read post]
29 May 2016, 9:38 am by Schachtman
  Showing that Johns Manville was well aware of the extraordinarily great hazard of crocidolite would have been relatively easy to do from past transcripts, articles, speeches, and litigation conduct of the Johns Manville companies. [read post]