Search for: "State v. Pinch"
Results 81 - 100
of 202
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Feb 2015, 5:08 am
Oral argument was held Wednesday in EEOC v. [read post]
18 Dec 2014, 10:48 pm
Two weeks ago, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held a hearing on the damages award and underlying liability issues in the first Apple v. [read post]
11 Dec 2014, 11:23 am
In Garay v. [read post]
4 Dec 2014, 9:35 pm
In Apple v. [read post]
2 Oct 2014, 4:18 pm
See Law v. [read post]
3 Sep 2014, 10:39 pm
The Federal Circuit adopted Judge Posner's claim construction of this patent in Apple v. [read post]
1 Aug 2014, 12:13 am
(If you have read my posts on Oracle v. [read post]
15 Jul 2014, 9:34 pm
Meanwhile, Judge Koh has handed down an appealable final judgment in that first California Apple v. [read post]
27 Jun 2014, 6:55 am
United States. [read post]
30 Apr 2014, 8:37 am
None whatsoever.History could now repeat itself in connection with the Apple v. [read post]
28 Apr 2014, 10:11 am
Jonathan Adler blogged about United States v. [read post]
5 Apr 2014, 11:52 pm
Samsung case in California), slide-to-unlock (at issue in the ongoing Apple v. [read post]
4 Apr 2014, 1:42 am
The most valuable one of Apple's three software patents-in-suit in the first case (most of the damages there relate to design patents, not software patents), the '915 pinch-to-zoom API patent, has meanwhile been rejected by the United States Patent and Trademark Office and Apple had to file an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. [read post]
6 Mar 2014, 8:17 pm
The next Apple v. [read post]
23 Jan 2014, 9:37 am
For those who like their constitutional theory with a pinch between the cheek and gum, there’s McLane Southern, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Jan 2014, 8:20 am
Belden Techs., Inc. v. [read post]
5 Jan 2014, 5:23 am
(Also, the situation surrounding the '915 pinch-to-zoom API patent, which the USPTO's Central Reexamination Division rejected last month, could lead to further complications, as I discussed in my post on the renewed motion.)Since the parties already briefed the court extensively on the eBay v. [read post]
26 Dec 2013, 9:50 pm
On November 18, 2013 the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit revived Apple's bid for a permanent patent injunction against Samsung's Android-based devices with respect to three multitouch software patents (rubber-banding, tap-to-zoom-and-navigate, and pinch-to-zoom API), while affirming Judge Lucy Koh's denial of injunctive relief with respect to the asserted design patents. [read post]
21 Nov 2013, 2:37 pm
It's misleading to say that the USPTO "has [...] deemed [the '915 pinch-to-zoom API patent] invalid" because the USPTO proceedings are still ongoing and could still be ongoing for a couple of years. [read post]
20 Nov 2013, 10:40 am
[/Update]On the second day of jury deliberations in the Apple v. [read post]
