Search for: "Technical Publishing Co. v. Technology Publishing Corp." Results 1 - 20 of 95
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
A dissenting judge argued that one of the patents contained plausibly valid claims that recited technical improvements to a graphical user interface (International Business Machines Corp. v. [read post]
28 Dec 2011, 5:29 pm by Lloyd J. Jassin
  For example, in Tele-Pac, Inc. v. [read post]
31 Oct 2021, 9:25 am by Eleonora Rosati
Laitram Corp, 406 U.S. 518 (1972) and Microsoft Corp. v. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 8:20 am by Guest Barista
More recently, the district court in I-Flow Corp. v. [read post]
16 Jan 2011, 7:36 am by Vincent LoTempio
(see chart below World Wide Ownership of US Patents 2010) Top-50 US Patent Assignees in 2010 (As reported by IFI) International Business Machines Corp 5896 Samsung Electronics Co Ltd (Korea) 4551 Microsoft Corp 3094 Canon K K (Japan) 2552 Panasonic Corp (Japan) 2482 Toshiba Corp (Japan) 2246 Sony Corp (Japan) 2150 Intel Corp 1653 LG Electronics Inc (Korea) 1490 Hewlett-Packard Development… [read post]
15 Feb 2011, 4:06 am by Andrew Frisch
To further explain our common sense understanding of why PSRs make sales, we find the paradigm “outside salesman” case Jewel Tea Co. v. [read post]
1 Dec 2014, 12:36 am
Jeremy pens on one of those rarities, ie Case C-170/13 Huawei Technologies Co. [read post]
26 Dec 2016, 4:30 am by Ben
 The Brussels offering was a consultation on two things, the role of the publisher and the "panorama" right, and the IPOs a further consultation and technical review "on changes to Section 72 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (which permits the free public showing or playing of a film contained in a broadcast). [read post]