Vacated judgment - PDFSEARCH.IO - Document Search Engine

Vacated judgment
Results: 110

#	Item
31	On April 11, 2005, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s partial summary judgment that ARM did not infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,332,215, which relates to a hardware accelerator to translate Java b Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-05-05 15:17:21 Legal procedure Patent law Appeal Lawsuits Person having ordinary skill in the art Trial court Law Court systems Appellate review
32	On January 6, 2005, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded the district court’s summary judgment that MicroStrategy did not infringe claims 1, 2 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 5,555,403, which re Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-01-07 14:35:43 Query languages Prosecution history estoppel Law Relational database management systems Doctrine of equivalents Database management systems Online analytical processing SQL MicroStrategy Patent law Data management Computing
33	[Cite as Pryor v. Pryor, 2012-Ohio[removed]IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ROSS COUNTY Anthony C. Pryor, Add to Reading List Source URL: www.sconet.state.oh.us Language: English - Date: 2012-02-27 14:34:30 Lawsuits Legal procedure Motion Vacated judgment Law Appeal Appellate review
34	NC-DSH, Inc. v. Garner, 125 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 50 (October 29, [removed]CIVIL PROCEDURE – VACATING JUDGMENT FOR FRAUD UPON THE COURT Summary Appeal from a district court order vacating a stipulated final judgment under N Add to Reading List Source URL: law.unlv.edu Language: English - Date: 2010-10-05 16:26:49 Lawsuits Vacated judgment Motion Appeal Law Civil procedure Judgment
35	On March 7, 2005, the Federal Circuit, inter alia, vacated-in-part, affirmed-inpart and remanded the district court’s summary judgment that P&G did not infringe U.S. Patent No. 4,536,178, which related to a tampon appl Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-03-30 13:24:12 Flatten Claim Tampon Patent law Computer representation of surfaces Surfaces
36	On September 16, 2005, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s summary judgment that Cybex did not infringe U.S. Patents No. 6,238,323 and No. 6,458,061, which related to exercise equipment. The F Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-10-10 20:31:58 Property law Claim Doctrine of equivalents Patent infringement United States patent law Patent Disclaimer Prosecution disclaimer Prosecution history estoppel Patent law Law Civil law
37	On November 7, 2005, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s summary judgment that Graco did not infringe U.S. Patents No. 6,550,862 and No. 6,612,649, which related to a child car seat. The Feder Add to Reading List Source URL: www.law.umaryland.edu Language: English - Date: 2005-12-07 07:28:53 Infancy Child safety Graco SEAT Cup holder Baby transport Infant car seat Childhood Human development Babycare
38	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
39	[removed]pr McLamb v. County of Suffolk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER Add to Reading List Source URL: law.shu.edu Language: English - Date: 2009-05-06 20:03:37 Rooker–Feldman doctrine Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. Appeal Res judicata Abstention doctrine Vacated judgment Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States Citation signal Law Civil procedure Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp.
40	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

UPDATE