Search for: "United States v. Wallach"
Results 61 - 80
of 112
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Nov 2013, 8:40 pm
” The court stated in In re Wallach, 378 F.3d 1330, 1333 (Fed. [read post]
8 Oct 2013, 2:52 pm
Cir. 2010), in which this court construed “‘the centrifugal unit’” to be the entire unit. [read post]
19 Feb 2015, 9:53 pm
Cogan transfer the relevant files to another law firm, Welsh & Katz, to continue prosecution before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). [read post]
2 Jul 2013, 7:32 am
This appeal arises from an inter partes reexamination proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). [read post]
27 Sep 2022, 7:53 am
Drohan, partner at Drohan Lee, and Dana V. [read post]
4 Dec 2020, 7:38 am
The consideration for the contract is Petitioner’s agreement not to use or register the NAKED trademark for condoms in the United States and Respondent’s agreement not to use or register the NUDE trademark for condoms. [read post]
31 Mar 2016, 3:01 pm
ClearCorrect v. [read post]
15 Aug 2014, 2:27 pm
(The other panel members were Judge Wallach and Judge Mayer). [read post]
2 May 2019, 8:36 am
Thus, at least technically, ITC proceedings are “by and in the name of the United States” as required by the FDCA act. [read post]
7 May 2009, 8:35 pm
As Evan Wallach documents in his article, Drop for Drop, the United States government has also prosecuted and court-martialed individuals for wartime use of waterboarding. [read post]
17 Jan 2020, 11:44 am
United States and Xerox Corp. v. [read post]
13 May 2013, 11:39 am
CLS Bank International v. [read post]
22 Apr 2014, 7:41 am
In Eisai Co. v. [read post]
8 Sep 2014, 8:41 pm
ConclusionTexas CourtFor the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, No. 10-CV-0521. [read post]
21 May 2014, 8:42 pm
” Harlan v. [read post]
19 Jan 2017, 4:44 am
At the Sports Law Blog, Daniel Wallach handicaps the chances that the court will grant review in in Christie v. [read post]
10 Feb 2014, 10:11 pm
Procedural History[In an inter partes reexamination,] t]he United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) reversed the examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3 and 6–13 of U.S. [read post]
11 Sep 2013, 8:52 pm
” High Point Design, at * 2.Legal Reasoning (O’MALLEY, SCHALL, and WALLACH)[1][a] Invalidity Based on Obviousness: Ordinary Observer v. [read post]
24 Sep 2018, 8:41 am
by Dennis Crouch Hyatt v. [read post]
18 Aug 2014, 8:56 am
(collectively, “Apotex”) appeal the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida finding that: (1) Apotex’s U.S. [read post]
