Search for: "Rand v. United States" Results 141 - 160 of 276
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 May 2014, 2:16 pm by Jani
With the Alice Corporation v CLS Bank Supreme Court decision looming in the horizon, and the patentability of software in the US faces its most recent judicial challenge, this writer thought it was best to look at the origins of the current stance of such patents in the United States. [read post]
26 Dec 2013, 7:05 am by David Markus
Archer, 531 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008), and United States v. [read post]
3 Oct 2013, 12:40 pm by Florian Mueller
Judge Holderman also compares the number he arrived at with a jury award in Ericsson v. [read post]
11 Sep 2013, 11:42 am by Florian Mueller
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has already issued one ruling in Apple's favor against Google's Motorola (reversing and remanding an ITC ruling, which Google just asked it to reconsider), was clearly leaning Apple's way last month with respect to its continued pursuit of a permanent injunction against Samsung, and based on how today's appellate hearing on Judge Richard Posner's June 2012 dismissal of a two-way Apple v. [read post]
10 Sep 2013, 8:00 am by Raffaela Wakeman
You’ve likely heard:  in a bid to avert action by the United States, Russia has proposed that Syria abandon its chemical weapons stockpiles. [read post]
6 Jul 2013, 12:39 pm by Florian Mueller
In my previous post I published the dissenting views of Commissioner Pinkert, one of the six chiefs of the United States International Trade Commission (USITC, or just ITC), from the majority decision granting Samsung (unless vetoed by the United States Trade Representative or reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) an exclusion order against older iPhones and iPads. [read post]
28 Jun 2013, 11:05 am by Lori Lustrin
  First articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Daubert v. [read post]
27 Jun 2013, 9:01 pm by John Dean
The General Perjury Statute (18 USC 1621) has been nicely encapsulated in United States v. [read post]