Search for: "In Re Federal Computer Corporation, Petitioner"
Results 1 - 20
of 32
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Sep 2007, 11:12 am
The question presented in this case is "[w]hether the Federal Circuit erred by holding, in conflict with decisions of this Court and other courts of appeals, that respondent's patent rights were not exhausted by its license agreement with Intel Corporation, and Intel's subsequent sale of products under the license to petitioners. [read post]
8 Apr 2014, 2:45 pm
On Monday, March 31, 2014, the United States Supreme Court held oral arguments in the much-anticipated software battle between patentee Alice Corporation, the petitioner, and CLS Bank, the respondent who was victorious below thanks to an equally divided Federal Circuit. [read post]
18 Apr 2014, 9:28 am
Background: Alice Corporation, petitioner, owns the four patents-in-suits which are directed toward a computerized trading platform for the execution of a previously agreed-upon exchange, known as “settlement. [read post]
17 Aug 2012, 5:01 am
South Carolina has a corporate license fee – in effect a combination of a property tax and a gross receipts tax – that is computed at higher rates for certain types of companies, including telephone companies. [read post]
30 Mar 2014, 5:30 am
Mondor, 2014 O… http://t.co/ZA10a87SEc -> Computer and Internet Law Updates for 2014-03-28: C [read post]
13 Oct 2011, 3:47 pm
Schlumberger Technology Corporation v. [read post]
13 Mar 2014, 3:13 am
By Dennis Crouch Alice Corporation Pty. [read post]
10 Jul 2013, 7:43 am
In re Estate of Shipman, No. 26512, 2013 S.D. [read post]
31 Jan 2008, 8:36 pm
LG Electronics, the Supreme Court is being asked whether the Federal Circuit erred by holding, in conflict with decisions of this Court and other courts of appeals, that respondent's patent rights were not exhausted by its license agreement with Intel Corporation, and Intel's subsequent sale of product under the license to petitioners. [read post]
24 Jun 2016, 10:18 am
The petitioner in Life Technologies Corporation v. [read post]
9 Jul 2012, 1:11 pm
Alice Corporation got patents on a computerized trading platform that ameliorates settlement risk. [read post]
21 Mar 2022, 7:10 am
The case involved a former employee, Azima, who claimed that RAIKA hacked his computer in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. [read post]
17 Mar 2016, 2:45 am
The opening paragraph spells out the case: This “groundbreaking” case, as Petitioner describes it, has been going on, unjustifiably and unconstitutionally, for nearly three years now – all because Petitioner has refused to admit or accept that its state law claims against MPHJ are preempted by federal law, barred by the First Amendment “right to petition” clause, and that Congress has decided that federal preemption questions… [read post]
8 Mar 2021, 4:17 pm
HINNERS, Appellee. 4th District.Dissolution of marriage -- Child support -- Income -- Requirement that former husband pay private school tuition for the parties' children reversed where evidence did not support former husband's ability to pay -- Trial court erred in failing to deduct rehabilitative alimony award from former husband's gross income for purposes of computing child support. [read post]
3 Dec 2011, 9:56 am
LANE, Appellees. 1st District.Civil procedure -- Service of process -- Foreign corporations -- Service of process on defendant corporation quashed -- Plaintiff attempted to perform substitute service pursuant to incorrect Florida long arm jurisdiction statute -- Further, plaintiff did not strictly comply with requirements for substituted service against domestic corporation, which requires notification by registered or certified mail to defendant after service upon… [read post]
31 Aug 2012, 9:00 am
Justice Wainwright wrote for the majority, emphasizing that it was “the United States Army Corps of Engineers, not the State of Texas, [that] exercised its exclusive authority to deny petitioner’s application for a federal mitigation banking permit on the land. [read post]
6 Aug 2023, 5:40 am
Specifically, the Age 29 Law “expands access to health insurance through a COBRA-like benefit for young adults by requiring commercial insurers, non-profit corporations, and HMOs to offer an option to continue coverage for unmarried young adults through age 29, regardless of financial dependence, under a parent’s group health insurance policy. [read post]
30 Apr 2014, 12:06 pm
Aaron Panner argued on behalf of the petitioner Limelight (the accused infringer) and shared time with Assistant Solicitor Ginger Anders who filed a brief in support of the petitioner. [read post]
15 Sep 2014, 11:00 am
The petitioners present four issues: Should limitations have been tolled here? [read post]
29 Sep 2010, 12:49 pm
See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. [read post]
