Search for: "GRAY v. DOE et al"
Results 81 - 100
of 126
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Feb 2010, 3:35 am
Bissell Homecare, Inc (not precedential) (TTABlog) TTAB sustains 2(d) opposition, finding SWEDISH LUXERY and SWEDISH SLEEP SYSTEM confusingly similar for mattresses: Tempur-Pedic International Inc., et al. v. [read post]
22 Feb 2010, 3:35 am
Bissell Homecare, Inc (not precedential) (TTABlog) TTAB sustains 2(d) opposition, finding SWEDISH LUXERY and SWEDISH SLEEP SYSTEM confusingly similar for mattresses: Tempur-Pedic International Inc., et al. v. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 9:00 pm
Expedia, Inc., et al., Los Angeles Superior Court West District, Case No. [read post]
4 Jan 2010, 3:23 am
Hewlett-Packard Company v Acceleron LLC - Federal Circuit says ‘declaratory judgment jurisdiction’ even if patent holder’s notice avoids phrases like ‘infringement’ and ‘assertion’ (Patents4Life) Except as provided elsewhere, or trumped, I’ll own all the IP – Delaware Chancery Court reminds of risks of wholesale incorporation by reference between separate IP agreements and judicial misreading of patent law: Cepahlon v Johns… [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 3:51 am
(GRAY On Claims) District Court E D Louisiana: Prior License of asserted patent does not bar imposition of permanent injunction: Innovention Toys, LLC v MGA Entertainment, Inc. et al(Docket Report) District Court N D California: Delay of five to seven years does not create undue prejudice sufficient to deny stay pending reexam: Spectros Corp v Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc (Docket Report) BPAI: Reissue cannot merely add new dependent… [read post]
24 Oct 2011, 4:21 am
Aston Martin, et al. [read post]
29 Aug 2022, 9:05 pm
There have also been reports that the FTC is actively investigating violations of past merger consent decrees, potentially with the aim of unwinding the previously cleared merger.15 In this vein, the agencies have been issuing “close at your own risk” letters to merging parties in non-challenged and non-remedy transactions that remind the parties that the agencies retain the authority to challenge mergers after they have closed and that expiration of an HSR waiting period… [read post]
6 Sep 2010, 12:42 am
BIC Corporation et al. [read post]
4 Oct 2021, 1:52 pm
Post-AIA (Point Estimate) We thank LaTia Brand of Harrity Analytics and the Stanford NPE Database, described in Shawn Miller et al., Who’s Suing Us? [read post]
4 Oct 2021, 1:52 pm
Post-AIA (Point Estimate) We thank LaTia Brand of Harrity Analytics and the Stanford NPE Database, described in Shawn Miller et al., Who’s Suing Us? [read post]
22 Mar 2010, 4:28 am
Stremicks Heritage Foods LLC (Docket Report) District Court E D Texas: Delay seeking transfer of venue trumps other convenience factors: eTool Development, Inc. et al v. [read post]
9 Apr 2024, 7:03 am
Newport News School Bd, et al. , 2023 Va. [read post]
Appellate Court Shuts Out Trial Court in CEQA/ESA Double Header under Deferential Standard of Review
3 Apr 2014, 11:08 am
California Department of Fish and Game, et al. [read post]
7 Aug 2011, 11:24 pm
Hitachi et al (EDTexweblog.com) CAFC sets new test for ‘inequitable’ patent prosecution: Therasense v Becton, Dickinson & Co (JIPLP) CAFC validity determination undone by appellant via patent reexamination? [read post]
7 Aug 2011, 11:24 pm
Hitachi et al (EDTexweblog.com) CAFC sets new test for ‘inequitable’ patent prosecution: Therasense v Becton, Dickinson & Co (JIPLP) CAFC validity determination undone by appellant via patent reexamination? [read post]
23 Sep 2011, 3:17 am
Research in Motion Ltd., et. al. [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 11:05 pm
United States (Gray on Claims) CAFC: Orion v Hyundai on novelty: Expanding the scope of a printed publication with oral testimony (Patently-O) District Court N D Illinois: False marking includes marking with expired patent number: ZOJO Solutions Inc. v. [read post]
8 Feb 2010, 4:02 am
(Class 99) District Court Delaware: Grant of preliminary injunction does not establish objective recklessness for wilfulness: Cordis Corporation v. [read post]
7 Feb 2011, 12:27 pm
Harper, et al., Harper, James & Gray on Torts, § 5.30, p. 300 (3d ed. 2006). [read post]
18 Dec 2009, 6:33 am
(EDTexweblog.com) (Docket Report Blog) District Court E D Texas: Ashcroft and Twombly do not require that complaint allege ‘how’ accused products infringe: WIAV Networks, LLC v 3Com Corp et al (Docket Report Blog) District Court N D California: 3-D computer graphics claims invalid under Bilski, Prometheus: FuzzySharp Technologies v 3DLabs Inc. [read post]
