Search for: "United States v. Apple Inc." Results 181 - 200 of 915
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Jun 2016, 2:43 pm by Florian Mueller
In other words, an identical act of infringement would yield two different damages awards simply because the infringers packaged their products in different units. [read post]
21 Feb 2020, 3:16 pm by Anthony Zaller
  Illustrative of this, the Plaintiffs in the action dismissed all non-California law claims following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. [read post]
3 May 2013, 9:23 am by Florian Mueller
Apple doesn't have to fear that its products will be banned in the United States over Motorola's standard-essential patents. [read post]
31 Aug 2012, 7:58 pm by Florian Mueller
With the exception of certain kinds of standard-essential patents (for example, cellular standards patents), it's clear that the product will still be sold after being modified to work around the enforced patents, maybe after a minor disruption caused by the need to make those modifications.If products are named in an injunction order, they are only examples of infringement and do not limit the scope of an injunction that is worded like Judge Koh's two recent injunctions against… [read post]
27 Feb 2013, 10:45 pm by Florian Mueller
I guess there are written or at least unwritten rules in the United States that would prevent this from happening in the first place. [read post]
16 Jan 2013, 10:14 pm by Florian Mueller
Apple's petition mentions that two months after the Galaxy Nexus decision, another Federal Circuit panel issued a more injunction-friendly ruling in a different IT patent case (Presidio Components, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Apr 2013, 6:28 am
Big Apple Consulting USA, Inc., MJMM Investments, LLC, Marc Jablon, Matthew Maguire, Mark C. [read post]
4 Apr 2007, 7:25 am
The most notorious example of this is the United States Supreme Court's decision in Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Jul 2020, 1:56 pm by Unknown
United States (Endangered Species Act; Yellowstone Grizzlies)Dossett v. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 5:00 am by Beck, et al.
Pa. 1985) (can’t tell what state’s law); Seiden v. [read post]
4 Jun 2013, 6:28 am by Casey Johnston
Department of Justice NEW YORK—In a Manhattan courtroom, Apple and the Department of Justice gave their opening statements in the e-book price-fixing case United States of America v. [read post]