Search for: "Lilly v. United States Lines Co."
Results 21 - 40
of 54
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Oct 2013, 10:32 am
United Space Alliance ruling. [read post]
22 Aug 2013, 1:07 pm
Despite the industry’s reliance on this kind of continuation practice, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) recently announced that it is more critically evaluating whether amendments and continu¬ations that claim smaller portions of the originally claimed design would be invalid for lacking “written description” support under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
24 Jun 2013, 9:01 pm
The Facts in Vance v. [read post]
28 Apr 2013, 8:40 am
Reciting Seager v Copydex and Banks v EMI Songs, the former judge stated that 'where an inventor wanted to sell his idea for money, money is what he got'. [read post]
27 Aug 2012, 9:31 am
See Eli Lilly Co. v. [read post]
27 Aug 2012, 9:31 am
See Eli Lilly Co. v. [read post]
29 May 2012, 8:17 am
Eli Lilly & Co. and Jirak v. [read post]
29 Dec 2011, 6:50 am
United Air Lines, Inc., 94 F.R.D. 304, 305 (N.D.Ill.1982) (considering how long after the deadline the consent forms were filed); but see Reyes v. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 4:37 pm
” United States v. [read post]
31 Jul 2011, 9:28 pm
Co. v. [read post]
10 Jun 2011, 4:09 pm
Eli Lilly & Co., 199 F.3d 1559, 1568 (Fed. [read post]
7 Jun 2011, 11:06 am
Co. v. [read post]
28 Apr 2011, 3:18 pm
At least the state of the art at the time of the plaintiff’s use applies – unknown and later discovered risks are irrelevant. [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 1:06 pm
See Accomac Realty Co. v. [read post]
9 Sep 2010, 7:09 pm
United States v. [read post]
20 Aug 2010, 4:25 am
” United States v. [read post]
21 Jul 2010, 4:33 am
" Vendo Co. v. [read post]
24 Mar 2010, 11:33 am
See United States v. [read post]
18 Feb 2010, 10:34 am
Because those are federal statutes, they can’t be “preempted” the way state-law claims were in Buckman Co. v. [read post]
14 Feb 2009, 11:56 am
Part V identifies key unresolved issues in the state courts. [read post]
