Search for: "MOTOROLA V US"
Results 81 - 100
of 770
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Aug 2013, 8:14 am
The Microsoft v. [read post]
14 Sep 2017, 1:05 pm
Tea Co. v. [read post]
16 Dec 2013, 9:09 am
This week I decided to work on Tuesday (Senate hearing on patent reform) and Friday (Nokia v. [read post]
5 Jan 2014, 1:40 am
Last year the Mannheim Regional Court dismissed a couple of German Nokia v. [read post]
27 May 2012, 10:00 am
The violation is in regards to the use of the 3G wireless technology in Apple’s iPhone and iPad devices. [read post]
31 Aug 2012, 3:15 am
I'll talk about that in my next post.I mentioned the "core Android operating system" -- in quotes -- in the headline because Google used this term in its official reaction to last week's Apple v. [read post]
18 Aug 2013, 10:56 pm
In one week from today, the Microsoft v. [read post]
10 May 2013, 9:42 am
Scola in the Southern District of Florida concerning a Motorola Mobility v. [read post]
27 Apr 2013, 4:33 am
He thus uses as his primary 802.11 comparable a royalty rate determined in 2003 by industry analyst InteCap, which he then divides by 25 to reflect the small value actually attributable to Motorola's patented technology. [read post]
13 Dec 2013, 3:20 pm
US v. [read post]
25 Apr 2013, 3:14 am
As I wrote in the context of yesterday's decision by a German appeals court to stay a Motorola v. [read post]
2 Mar 2010, 7:56 pm
Bender v Motorola Inc., No. 09-1245 (N.D. [read post]
13 Apr 2011, 8:02 pm
It is an important step in promoting the use of criminal sanctions to regulate corporate behavior. [read post]
27 Apr 2014, 9:33 pm
Motorola case. [read post]
10 May 2013, 11:22 pm
Robart's Microsoft v. [read post]
18 Nov 2010, 10:01 pm
Motorola Inc. [read post]
8 Nov 2013, 12:26 am
For that reason, another German court, the Düsseldorf Regional Court, stayed a Huawei v. [read post]
16 Aug 2011, 6:06 am
Verizon, Facebook v. [read post]
3 Oct 2013, 12:40 pm
Judge Holderman also compares the number he arrived at with a jury award in Ericsson v. [read post]
10 Sep 2013, 10:23 am
The U.S. dispute started long before any German filings and had worldwide scope from the beginning because Motorola had sent demand letters to Microsoft (from one U.S. company to another) referring to worldwide standard-essential patent (SEP) licenses and even specifically listing the patents at issue in Germany.Not only has Google's Motorola recently brought the aforementioned royalty-collection lawsuit, in defiance of Judge Robart's FRAND rate-setting opinion, but it's also… [read post]
