Affirmed - PDFSEARCH.IO - Document Search Engine

Affirmed
Results: 322

#	Item
111	On January 3, 2005, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment that the USPTO did not act unlawfully in deeming U.S. patent application Serial No[removed],043, which related to a peach tree varie Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-01-05 21:46:35 Patent examiner Patent Inventor United States patent law Patent prosecution Patent law Law Patentability
112	JEFFERSON’S MANUAL § 583–§ 584 Houses together have power of judicature; and the book of the Clerk of the House of Commons is a record, as is affirmed by act of Parl., 6 H. Add to Reading List Source URL: www.gpo.gov Language: English - Date: 2012-02-01 08:36:41 Government Adjournment Quorum Westminster system Recess Parliament of Singapore Article One of the United States Constitution United States Senate House of Commons of the United Kingdom Parliamentary procedure Principles Privileged motions
113	On June 1, 2005, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of MedImmune’s suit against Centocor seeking a declaration that U.S. Patent No. 5,807,715, which related to chimeric immunoglobulins, was i Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-06-07 12:02:25 Law Altvater v. Freeman Cabilly patents Civil procedure Declaratory judgment Judgment
114	On July 14, 2005, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded district court’s summary judgment that Plastipak did not infringe U.S. Reissue Patent No. 36,639, which related to a one-piece plast Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-08-05 21:32:54 Claim Prior art Patent Title 35 of the United States Code Creativity Patent prosecution Patent law United States patent law Law
115	On May 10, 2005, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, vacatedin-part and remanded the district court’s judgment entering the jury verdict that Smith & Nephew infringed U.S. Patents No. 5,697,536, No. Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-06-07 12:03:53 Surgery Electrodes Neurophysiology Electrochemistry Medicine Dermatologic surgery Electrosurgery
116	On October 4, 2005, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment that ERM did not infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,710,835, which related to wavelet transforms, and that the patent was invalid under 35 Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-10-10 20:30:21 Property law Claim Person having ordinary skill in the art Title 35 of the United States Code Prior art Patent LizardTech Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping Inc. Sufficiency of disclosure Patent law Law Civil law
117	On January 7, 2005, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded the district court’s summary judgment that, inter alia, Mattel did not infringe U.S. Patents No. 5,308,080 and No. 5,419,564, whic Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-01-07 14:35:54 Statute of frauds Oral contract Mattel Meeting of the minds Contract law Law Contract
118	On January 11, 2005, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s attorney fees award to Acorn of $399,[removed]under 35 U.S.C. § 285 based upon a determination that Bruno engaged in inequitable conduct while prose Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-01-17 06:07:55 United States patent law Law Ethics Inequitable conduct United States law
119	On June 28, 2005, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment entering the jury verdict that U.S. Patents No. 5,761,605 and No. 6,169,878, which related direct broadcast satellite service (DBS) from geos Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-07-01 10:07:43 Motion Judgment as a matter of law Evidence Government Law Juries Legal procedure
120	On May 23, 2005, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s entry of judgment upon the jury verdict that Imonex infringed U.S. Patent No. 4,911,280, which related to coin selectors, and the award of $1,396,872 i Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-06-07 12:04:51 Patent infringement Ecolab v. FMC United States patent law Patent law Law

UPDATE