Search for: "Williams v. Alexander" Results 161 - 180 of 473
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Mar 2016, 2:42 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
The historical claims about Edison's contributions, which Howells and Katznelson present as fact, are better understood as a deeply mythologized "narrative of invention" that Edison himself forged in preparation for litigation. n116 The model of incremental innovation more accurately fits the true history of the light bulb's development.Within the Supreme Court case, The Consolidated Electric Light Company, Appellant, v. [read post]
1 May 2013, 1:16 pm by Taryn Rucinski
Environmental water : advances in treatment, remediation and recycling / V. [read post]
15 Mar 2010, 2:32 pm
” [29] In essence, not only represented traditional committees would be subject to the disclosure rules, but also ad hoc committees. [30] V. [read post]
3 Apr 2007, 11:30 am
(Alexander Hastie). [read post]
19 Oct 2022, 12:15 am by Eden Winlow (Bristows)
Geofabrics Limited v Fiberweb Geosynthetics Limited [2022] EWHC 2363 (Pat) Geofabrics Limited (“Geofabrics”) has been awarded £13.4 million in damages for patent infringement, concluding a 5 year long dispute with Fiberweb Geosynthetics Limited (“Fiberweb”). [read post]
12 Mar 2010, 12:52 pm by Eric Turkewitz
A separate section, regarding a 30-day anti-solicitation rule, was upheld both in the court below as well as in the 2nd Circuit.The decision is here: /Alexander-v-Cahill-2ndCirc.pdf. [read post]
27 Aug 2016, 11:28 am by Carl Neff
In October 2015, Bomberger filed the instant action asserting four claims against Benchmark, Francis, Richard, William Alexander, William J. [read post]
27 Nov 2011, 4:42 pm by Ray Dowd
(disclosure - the author represented the Grosz heirs in Grosz v. [read post]
Recently, the decisions of courts in the United Kingdom (UK) in Unwired Planet v Huawei Technologies (Unwired Planet) and Optis Cellular Technology v Apple (which followed the decision of the UK Supreme Court in Unwired Planet) have given rise to significant debate over the appropriate forum for litigation of disputes in relation to standard essential patents (SEPs). [read post]