Search for: "Valley View Development, Inc. v. USA" Results 1 - 20 of 25
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Jan 2012, 3:57 am by Rob Robinson
Compiled from online public domain resources, provided for your review/use is this week's update of key industry news, views, and events highlighting key electronic discovery related stories, developments, and announcements. [read post]
(“Chesapeake”) drilled Cotton Valley wells in Sections 15 and 21 on lands that were unitized with the leased property.[6]  On September 1, 2009, Gloria’s Ranch executed a top lease to Chesapeake on the property in Section 21.[7]  In November of 2009, Tauren assigned the deep rights (all depths below the base of the Cotton Valley formation) to EXCO USA Asset, Inc. [read post]
(“Chesapeake”) drilled Cotton Valley wells in Sections 15 and 21 on lands that were unitized with the leased property.[6]  On September 1, 2009, Gloria’s Ranch executed a top lease to Chesapeake on the property in Section 21.[7]  In November of 2009, Tauren assigned the deep rights (all depths below the base of the Cotton Valley formation) to EXCO USA Asset, Inc. [read post]
(“Chesapeake”) drilled Cotton Valley wells in Sections 15 and 21 on lands that were unitized with the leased property.[6]  On September 1, 2009, Gloria’s Ranch executed a top lease to Chesapeake on the property in Section 21.[7]  In November of 2009, Tauren assigned the deep rights (all depths below the base of the Cotton Valley formation) to EXCO USA Asset, Inc. [read post]
(“Chesapeake”) drilled Cotton Valley wells in Sections 15 and 21 on lands that were unitized with the leased property.[6]  On September 1, 2009, Gloria’s Ranch executed a top lease to Chesapeake on the property in Section 21.[7]  In November of 2009, Tauren assigned the deep rights (all depths below the base of the Cotton Valley formation) to EXCO USA Asset, Inc. [read post]
27 May 2015, 3:41 pm
 Cisco looks forward to the retrial.After the verdict in the second trial which dealt with inducement, the Supreme Court delivered its decision in Global-Tech Appliances Inc v SEB SA (2011). [read post]
29 Mar 2010, 6:58 am
– Associated Press and fair use (Spicy IP) Copyright office: Copyright royalty judges have subpoena power over non-witnesses (Copyright Litigation Blog) International law: Wrestling the dead hand of history – Panel on Nazi looted art (Copyright Litigation Blog)   US Copyright – Decisions District Court E D Pennsylvania: $20 million copyright infringement jury award upheld in case concerning filched sales materials later used to poach clients: Graham v Haughey… [read post]
4 Feb 2009, 4:30 am
Pimpo, Opposition No. 91171962 (July 30, 2008) [not precedential] [TTABlogged here].Railrunner N.A., Inc. v. [read post]
8 Apr 2021, 9:52 am by Eric Goldman
In 2005, Google acquired Android, Inc., with the intention of developing a software platform for smartphones. [read post]
29 Dec 2017, 7:34 am by Ben
In the USA, one of the major musical works collection societies (and there are now four!) [read post]