Search for: "United States v. Container Corp." Results 61 - 80 of 2,307
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Dec 2011, 3:59 am by Mark Zamora
(“”Sears”) (collectively “Defendants”) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (styled Steve Chambers, Lynn Van Der Veer, David Brown, Bach-Tuyet Brown, Kevin O’Donnell, Joseph Cicchelli, Kurt Himler, Susan Milicia, Gary LeBlanc and James Cashman v. [read post]
Army Corps of Engineers finding that property contains “waters of the United States” is “final agency action” subject to judicial review. [read post]
2 Oct 2009, 1:28 am
ToxicCleanup_Army Corp Eng.jpg In prosecution for knowingly violating standards for handling asbestos-containing materials, evidence from ceiling material samples was relevant and admissible even though the samples had been collected over a year after the defendant's indictment and were taken from structures on which the defendant did not work; undisputed evidence that all building ceilings at the work site were made of the same materials allowed a reasonable… [read post]
17 Nov 2014, 9:57 pm
Category: ITC      By: Christian Hannon, Contributor  TitleuPI Semiconductor Corp. v. [read post]
7 Mar 2012, 1:55 pm by WIMS
Appealed from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. [read post]
24 Jan 2014, 6:59 pm
Pa- tent No. 7,892,281 (“’281 patent”), appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granting summary judgment to Edwards Lifesciences Corp., Edwards Lifesciences LLC, and Edwards Lifesciences (U.S.) [read post]
24 Mar 2016, 10:53 am by Miriam Seifter
The question presented in United States Army Corps of Engineers v. [read post]
25 Jul 2011, 4:23 am by John Day
The Tennessee Supreme Court has ruled that  Bell Atlantic Corp. v. [read post]
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]