Affirmed - PDFSEARCH.IO - Document Search Engine

Affirmed
Results: 322

#	Item
121	On May 5, 2005, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, vacatedin-part, and remanded the district court’s judgment following a bench trial that Invitrogen falsely marked its products under 35 U.S.C. § Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-05-05 15:17:28 Law Government Patent law Claim Patent
122	NOTE ENGLISH v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY: THE STATE RIGHT TO REGULATE THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INDUSTRY AFFIRMED--(ALBEIT INDIRECT) INTRODUCTION Add to Reading List Source URL: lawschool.unm.edu Language: English - Date: 2010-06-29 15:59:12 General Electric Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Association Law Case law English v. General Electric
123	On June 17, 2005, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment that U.S. Patents No. 5,932,624 and No. 6,605,646, which related to vitamin B12, folic acid (folate), supplement compositions, were i Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-07-01 10:07:08 Dietary supplements Alcohols B vitamins Orthomolecular medicine Vitamin B12 Folic acid Multivitamin Vitamin C Antioxidant Nutrition Chemistry Medicine
124	On December 20, 2005, the Federal Circuit, inter alia, affirmed-in-part, reversedin-part and remanded the district court’s summary judgment that U.S. Patents No. 5,409,693 and 5,574,063, which related to skin damage pr Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2006-02-01 18:55:53 Property law Doctrine of inherency Claim Patent Sunburn Prior art Person having ordinary skill in the art Novelty Patent law Law Civil law
125	On May 25, 2005, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences decision upholding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-20 of U.S. patent application Serial No[removed],326 (Harris) Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-06-07 12:04:52 Prima facie Prior art Title 35 of the United States Code Patent law Law Inventive step and non-obviousness
126	On June 8, 2005, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment that Bombardier’s personal watercraft and snowmobiles equipped with a Digitally Encoded Security System (DESS) did not infringe U.S. Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-07-01 10:06:39 Patent law Doctrine of equivalents Electrical connector
127	On June 16, 2005, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment that U.S. Patent No. 6,405,182, which related to prepaid debit card point-ofsale dispensers, is invalid for failure to meet the defin Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-07-01 10:07:03 Civil law Title 35 of the United States Code Property law Person having ordinary skill in the art Claim Patent Debit card Patent law Law United States patent law
128	On June 9, 2005, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment as a matter of law that U.S. Patent No. 5,045,172, which related to a capillary electrophoresis device, was invalid as obvious. The Federal Ci Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-07-01 10:06:43 Property law Inventive step and non-obviousness Person having ordinary skill in the art Title 35 of the United States Code Prior art Claim United States patent law Novelty and non-obviousness in Canadian patent law KSR v. Teleflex Patent law Law Civil law
129	On February 10, 2005, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Decker’s motion for a rule to show cause because of a lack of standing to enforce a 1997 consent judgment between Thatcher and Kohl Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-02-13 06:33:48 Civil procedure Legal procedure Judgment Contract Consent decree Assignment Parol evidence rule Settlement Law Contract law Legal terms
130	On August 22, 2005, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, and remanded the district court’s summary judgment that SUMCO did not infringe or induce infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,919,302, which rela Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-08-25 11:13:25 Business MEMC Electronic Materials Patent infringement Samsung Wafer

UPDATE