Search for: "International Business Machines Corp. v. United States" Results 61 - 80 of 90
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Dec 2013, 6:36 am by Marty Lederman
  Moreover, with respect to that one of the two options a RFRA claim is virtually foreclosed by the Court’s unanimous 1982 decision in United States v. [read post]
11 Nov 2013, 6:32 am by Russell Beck
International Business Machines Corp., 64 F.R.D. 367, 371–72 (S.D.N.Y. 1974); DeRubeis v. [read post]
23 Sep 2013, 12:50 pm by Mary Jane Wilmoth
International Business Machines CorporationCase number: 11-cv-00563 (United States District for the District of Columbia)Case filed: March 18, 2011Qualifying judgment/order: July 25, 2013 8/16/2013 11/14/2013 2013-67 In the Matter of ABN AMRO Bank, N.V.Administrative Proceeding File No.: 3-15401Case filed: July 31, 2013Qualifying judgment/order: July 31, 2013 8/16/2013 11/14/2013 … [read post]
10 Sep 2013, 8:31 pm by Eric Armstrong
[17], that a specially programmed computer is in effect a particular machine, no longer a generic computer, and logically patent-eligible? [read post]
20 Jun 2013, 11:44 am by paperstreet
“The statute sets forth four broadly stated categories of patent-eligible subject matter: processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter. [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 7:30 am by W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr.
State, 920 So. 2d 21, 24 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (internal citation omitted). [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 7:30 am by W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr.
State, 920 So. 2d 21, 24 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (internal citation omitted). [read post]
30 Nov 2011, 2:15 pm by Mandelman
The people that work in giant organizations like JPMorgan are not entrepreneurs, if they were they’d be starting their own businesses.   [read post]
4 Apr 2011, 7:02 am by Rebecca Tushnet
The issues are what can insiders do v. outsiders. [read post]
16 Jan 2011, 7:36 am by Vincent LoTempio
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) granted an all-time high 219,614 United States utility patents in 2010 – up 31 percent over 2009. [read post]
10 Dec 2010, 9:00 am by John N. Davis
In both the United States and Europe there have also been concerns as to whether the claimed invention was obvious. [read post]
4 Oct 2010, 4:05 am by Andrew Voth
Looking more closely at Rader’s opinion, Rader brings us back to the basics by stating that in order to invoke the EMVR: The patented components must be the basis for customer demand for the entire machine including the parts beyond the claimed invention, Fonar Corp. v. [read post]
9 Aug 2010, 10:33 am
Apps, 2nd Cir., decided 12/16/2009) In this case, the United States Court of Ap [read post]
11 Jun 2010, 3:46 pm by Anna Christensen
Regal-Beloit Corp.; Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. [read post]