Search for: "IN RE: AQUA PRODUCTS, INC. "
Results 1 - 20
of 37
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Aug 2016, 8:04 pm
Specifically, the Court requested that Appellant (Aqua Products, Inc.) and Intervenor (the Director of the U.S. [read post]
25 May 2016, 6:01 pm
In re Aqua Products (Fed. [read post]
15 Nov 2016, 9:19 pm
By Andrew Williams -- On Friday, December 9, 2016, the Federal Circuit will hear oral arguments en banc in the In re Aqua Products, Inc. case to consider two questions related to the PTAB's treatment of Motions to Amend in IPR proceedings. [read post]
22 Dec 2017, 8:34 am
InAqua Products, Inc. v. [read post]
4 Dec 2016, 6:15 am
On December 9, 2016, the en banc Federal Circuit will hear argument in In re Aqua Products, Inc. on an issue that has long been troubling patent owners involved in inter partes reviews (“IPR”)—the difficulty of amending patent claims before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”)... [read post]
25 Oct 2016, 2:22 pm
The only pending en banc patent case before the Federal Circuit is In re Aqua Products (Appeal No. 15-1177) involving claim amendments during inter partes review. [read post]
12 Aug 2016, 12:55 pm
The CAFC will address issues of amending claims during IPR in thecase In re Aqua Products, 2015-1177.The issues in Aqua:(1) The petition for rehearing en banc filed by AppellantAqua Products, Inc. is granted.(2) The court’s opinion in In re Aqua Products, Inc., 823F.3d 1369 (Fed. [read post]
12 Aug 2019, 8:56 pm
The Federal Circuit’s en banc opinion in In re Aqua Products was as massive as it was unfulfilling. [read post]
18 Oct 2017, 5:10 am
(Director Grant here; Trial Order here) the Board determined that because a contingent motion to amend remained pending, and In re Aqua Products issued just two days prior to the statutory deadline, that a discretionary extension was in order. [read post]
3 Dec 2018, 2:15 am
Also, in Aqua Products, Inc. v. [read post]
12 Sep 2008, 7:31 pm
” In re Aqua Dots Products Liab. [read post]
2 Nov 2016, 11:50 am
Another possibility is restricting claim amendments in Patent Office post-issuance proceedings, an issue currently before the en banc Federal Circuit in In re Aqua Products, Inc. [read post]
31 May 2012, 5:07 am
Children's Trampolines Recalled by Aqua-Leisure: About 40,000 of the First Fitness® Trampolines with Handlebars have been recalled by Aqua-Leisure Industries Inc. [read post]
7 Sep 2016, 11:14 am
In this case,we fail to see how describing the combination is meaningfullydifferent from describing what is new about theproposed claims, even in comparison to the unamendedclaims.Note also the CAFC's added comment:The Board rationale here is erroneous independently of anyresolution of this court’s recently initiated en banc proceedingin In re Aqua Products, Inc., No. 2015-1177,petition for rehearing en banc granted, 2016 WL 4375651(Fed. [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 4:55 pm
See Aqua Shield v. [read post]
8 Sep 2011, 12:00 pm
Ohio Aug. 12, 2011) (same); In re Fosamax Products Liability Litigation, 2009 WL 3398930 (S.D.N.Y. [read post]
11 Oct 2017, 8:00 am
Midwesco-Enterprise, Inc., 171 USPQ 696 (TTAB 1971) (holding AQUA-CARE (stylized) and WATERCARE (stylized), for water-conditioning products, likely to cause confusion). [read post]
11 Oct 2017, 8:00 am
Midwesco-Enterprise, Inc., 171 USPQ 696 (TTAB 1971) (holding AQUA-CARE (stylized) and WATERCARE (stylized), for water-conditioning products, likely to cause confusion). [read post]
1 Nov 2010, 3:12 am
Les Pierres Stonedge Inc., Opposition No. 91181621 [Section 2(d) opposition to registration of STONEDGE for precast decorative stone, in view of an alleged family of STON-formative marks for adhesive, grout, and mortar products].November 16, 2010 - 11 AM: In re Oversee.net , Serial No. 77542010 [Section 2(d) refusal to register LOWFARES.COM for on-line price comparison services and on-line information regarding travel and lodging in light of the registered mark… [read post]
2 Sep 2011, 3:43 am
Judge Easterbrook, in his recent opinion in In re Aqua Dots Products Liability Litigation, identifies one common theme: that Rule 23 means what it says: A district court is no more entitled to depart from Rule 23 than it would be to depart from one of the Supreme Court’s decisions after deeming the Court’s doctrine counterproductive. [read post]
