Search for: "United States v. Siemens Corp." Results 21 - 27 of 27
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Mar 2010, 2:06 pm
United States, 265 F.3d 1371, 1382 (Fed. [read post]
18 May 2009, 5:24 am
’ (China Law Blog)   Europe ECJ finds similar marks on wine and glasses not likely to cause confusion: Waterford Wedgewood plc v Assembled Investments (Proprietary) Ltd, OHIM (Class 46) (IPKat) AG Colomer opines in Maple leaf trade mark battle: joined cases American Clothing Associates SA v OHIM and OHIM v American Clothing Associates SA (IPKat) (Excess Copyright) CFI: Restitutio and time limits: how does the law stand now for CTMs? [read post]
12 Sep 2008, 2:33 pm
: (IP finance), MARQUES international advertising portal goes live: (Class 46)   Global - Patents Using patent landscaping analytics to improve the quality of M & A decisions: a review of Cox Enterprises’ $300M purchase of Adify: (IP Asset Maximiser Blog), Universities reap royalty rewards; investors ignore IP at their peril: (IAM), Top IP-owning nations claim faster patent processing; near harmonisation deal: (Intellectual Property Watch), Bosch, Xerox and Dupont sign up… [read post]
27 Jan 2009, 1:58 am
Company: Fast on the heels of Siemens recent agreement to pay $800 million to settle bribery allegations (about which refer here), Halliburton has now agreed to pay $559 million to settle charges that one of its former units bribed Nigerian off [read post]
1 Nov 2008, 3:12 am
(IPKat) United States US General 2005 civil damages awards in state courts rarely broke $1M according to report released by US Justice Department (Law360) Changes to expert witness rules draws critisism (Law360) Collaborative law and intellectual property cases (The IP ADR Blog) Democrats victory could mean a new focus on civil suits (Law360) Election could drastically affect appeals court makeup (Law360) Ethics case survey: when is attorney-client privilege… [read post]
18 Feb 2012, 5:15 am by Richard Renner
Boston Scientific Corp., 433 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2006)(holding that SOX has no application to employees outside the United States). [read post]