Search for: "Rogers v. Rogers" Results 41 - 60 of 4,071
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Dec 2009, 8:37 am
In support of its motion, Lincoln argued that the inequitable conduct defense set forth in Sidergas’ response to Lincoln’s complaint was inadequate under the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Exergen Corp. v. [read post]
1 Nov 2010, 6:30 am by Eric Schweibenz
ALJ Rogers further determined that Wistron’s four paragraph pleading did not meet the enhanced pleading standard required by Exergen v. [read post]
15 Oct 2010, 8:55 am by Eric Schweibenz
(Shanghai Factory) (collectively “Respondents”) and the Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) opposed the motion, arguing that Deutsche Bank does not control and that the Commission’s traditional three-part balancing test for determining treatment of confidential business information articulated in Akzo N.V. v. [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 10:10 am by Alex Gasser
ALJ Rogers further denied, as unnecessary, APM’s request that any order granting HP’s motion include a statement clarifying that APM is not precluded from challenging the validity of these five patents in district court, in view of caselaw stating: “decisions of the ITC involving patent issues have no preclusive effect in other forums,” citing Texas Instruments Inc. v. [read post]
2 Sep 2017, 1:26 pm by Stacey Lantagne
The Nowlan Family Trust, Civil Action No. 15-6231, dealing with issues around the trademark BUCK ROGERS. [read post]
14 Nov 2012, 9:22 am by Howard Knopf
Rogers, Telus, Bell and Quebecor have started what will surely be a very interesting lawsuit in the Federal Court seeking the return of $15 million dollars paid to SOCAN since 2006 on account of the certified Ringtones Tariff that was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal.However, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on July 12, 2012  in the ESAC v. [read post]
25 Jun 2009, 1:45 pm
That skill came in handy this morning when a DVD -- the A/V portion of the presentation -- was a little late in arriving. [read post]
25 Jan 2013, 4:09 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
The Board in Ex parte Rogers cites the 1876 base of Dunbar v. [read post]
9 Jul 2019, 12:57 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
Drape Creative, 909 F.3d 257 (9th Cir. 2018), the Honey Badger case, the Ninth Circuit began a process that could make Rogers v. [read post]
25 Feb 2014, 1:58 pm by admin
February 25, 2014 In an interesting and important decision issued by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on February 21st, the Court has now imposed a $500,000 civil administrative monetary penalty (“AMP”) against Rogers for failing to have performed adequate and proper testing in some Canadian markets for performance claims made in relation to its Chatr Wireless brand (see: Canada (Commissioner of Competition) v. [read post]