Search for: "Leatherman Tool Group, Inc."
Results 1 - 18
of 18
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Oct 2011, 10:49 am
Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. v. [read post]
5 May 2019, 4:58 am
Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 532 U.S. 424, 432 (2001) (the purpose of punitive damages is to punish and deter future wrongdoing); Engle v. [read post]
22 Sep 2015, 4:00 am
Leatherman Tool Group, 135 Cal.App.4th 663 (2006) (see this blog post) and Kwikset Corp. v. [read post]
24 Sep 2014, 7:11 pm
Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., as courts in at least seven states (including the court below) hold; or, instead, (2) use the rational-factfinder test of Jackson v. [read post]
15 Aug 2018, 2:48 pm
Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 663, 679.) [read post]
16 Dec 2009, 7:51 am
Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 663, 697.). [read post]
18 Jun 2007, 6:00 am
Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 135 Cal.App.4th 663, 700 (2006), evidence of the "value of the consumer impact or the advantage realized by [the defendant]" is admissible to prove "the amount of restitution necessary to restore [the plaintiffs] to the status quo ante" (citing Korea Supply)). [read post]
29 Apr 2007, 3:49 pm
The Board agreed with Applicant that American Fertility controls, but it declined to grant Applicant's request that an augmented panel consider overruling the TTAB's decision in In re Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 32 USPQ2d 1443 (TTAB 1994); the Examining Attorney's inappropriate reliance on that decision (superseded by the CAFC's American Fertility ruling) does not require the Board to expressly overrule it.The PTO relied on two NEXIS database… [read post]
1 Oct 2013, 5:00 am
Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 663, 682 [to establish a false advertising claim, “a plaintiff need only show that members of the public are likely to be deceived” under a “‘reasonable consumer’ standard”].) .... .... [read post]
1 Apr 2014, 11:08 am
Leatherman Tool Group, Inc.,135 Cal.App.4th 663, 694 (2006). [read post]
13 Nov 2008, 9:45 pm
I took a look at the 9th Circuit's recent punitive damages and I found that the court has been inconsistent in its approach.The court tackled this issue head-on back in 2002, when it decided Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Jan 2010, 9:42 am
Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 663, 697.) [read post]
15 Nov 2010, 4:48 am
Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 532 U.S. 424 (2001), and State Farm Insurance Company v. [read post]
22 Dec 2006, 6:00 am
Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 135 Cal.App.4th 663 (2006). [read post]
15 Dec 2009, 1:04 pm
Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at p. 698.) [read post]
8 Oct 2014, 9:00 am
Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., as courts in at least seven states (including the court below) hold; or, instead, (2) use the rational-factfinder test of Jackson v. [read post]
27 Jul 2008, 3:27 pm
Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 532 U. [read post]
17 Feb 2011, 9:08 pm
[Guest Post by David Boundy. [read post]
