Search for: "In Re Google Technology Holdings LLC"
Results 1 - 20
of 200
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Nov 2020, 9:15 am
Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) in In re: Google Technology Holdings LLC. [read post]
17 Nov 2020, 9:15 am
Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) in In re: Google Technology Holdings LLC. [read post]
7 Oct 2020, 8:05 am
https://patentlyo.com/media/2020/10/GoogleQuestion.wavThis 30 second clip comes from a recent Federal Circuit oral arguments in a case captioned In Re Google Technology Holdings LLC (2019-1828). [read post]
5 Dec 2008, 6:15 am
I should note that Polaris recently changed its name to Bright Response LLC, and has asked the court to re-name the litigation Bright Response v. [read post]
31 Oct 2017, 11:15 am
DDR Holdings, LLC v. [read post]
11 Sep 2012, 9:47 am
The In re Google decision is currently on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. [read post]
26 Apr 2020, 12:59 pm
Super Interconnect Technologies LLC (“SIT”) sued Google for patent infringement in the Eastern District of Texas. [read post]
26 May 2022, 8:47 am
Google Technology, Inc., 2003 WL 21464568 (W.D. [read post]
18 Nov 2020, 6:59 pm
by Dennis Crouch In re Google Technology Holdings LLC (Fed. [read post]
1 Apr 2014, 4:43 pm
Third, as it did in the Ninth Circuit, Google argues that holding unencrypted Wi-Fi to be protected by the Wiretap Act “potentially renders unlawful — and subjects to possible criminal liability — security procedures that are standard in the information technology (IT) industry. [read post]
19 Feb 2010, 12:32 pm
The plaintiff was Function Media LLC, a patent holding company owned by husband-and-wife inventors Michael Dean and Lucinda Stone. [read post]
1 Apr 2014, 4:42 pm
Third, as it did in the Ninth Circuit, Google argues that holding unencrypted Wi-Fi to be protected by the Wiretap Act “potentially renders unlawful — and subjects to possible criminal liability — security procedures that are standard in the information technology (IT) industry. [read post]
8 Apr 2021, 9:52 am
Google LLC v. [read post]
22 May 2008, 12:55 pm
VIRGINIA INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY, LLC: no lawsuits. 6. [read post]
28 Mar 2013, 2:39 pm
Google, Inc., 2007 U.S. [read post]
22 Oct 2021, 10:18 am
L2MT is a member of the Avanci LLC patent pool. [read post]
15 Apr 2021, 10:51 am
Neapco Holdings LLC, et al., No. 20-891; NetSoc, LLC v. [read post]
7 Jun 2019, 11:07 am
First, the court says: we do not hold that § 230 protects all information derived from third-party information. [read post]
9 Apr 2021, 5:58 am
(Google LLC v. [read post]
10 Oct 2017, 5:52 am
” See e-ventures Worldwide, LLC v. [read post]
