Cases 91 - 100 of 165
STOLLER V SOCIETY FOR PREVENTION
as 08-1573
Appellant:
Leo Stoller
Appellee:
Society for Prevention of Trademark Abuse (sub Leo Stoller) and Sutech U.S.A., Inc.
STOLLER V POCEKOVIC
as 08-1569
Appellee:
George C. Kasboske, Loveland Products, Inc., Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. and others
Appellant:
Leo Stoller Central Mfg. Co.,
EVERY PENNY V AMERICAN EXPRESS
as 08-1434
Defendant-Appellee:
American Express Company, Green Dot Corporation, Mastercard International Incorporated and others
Plaintiff-Appellant:
Every Penny Counts, Inc.
KYOCERA WIRELESS V ITC
as 08-1355
Appellant:
AT&T Mobility LLC (f/k/a Cingular Wireless, LLC), Kyocera Wireless Corp., LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc. and others
Intervenor:
Broadcom Corporation
Appellee:
International Trade Commission
BOSS INDUSTRIES V YAMAHA MOTOR
as 08-1311
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant:
Boss Industries, Inc.
Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant:
James Atherley
Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellee:
Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A., Inc.
SYNTHES (USA) V GM DOS REIS
as 08-1279
Defendant-Appellee:
G.M. dos Reis Jr. Ind. Com. de Equip. Medico (aka GMReis)
Plaintiff-Appellant:
Synthes (U.S.A.)
BROADCOM V QUALCOMM
as 08-1199
Amicus Curiae:
AT&T Mobility LLC, ATMI, Inc., Association of Corporate Counsel and others
Plaintiff-Appellee:
Broadcom Corporation
Intellectual Property Owners Association:
Defendant-Appellant:
Qualcomm Incorporated
NMB SINGAPORE V US
as 08-1187
Plaintiff-Appellant:
JTEKT Corporation and Koyo Corporation of U.S.A.
Plaintiff-Appellee:
NSK Corporation and NSK Ltd.
Defendant/Cross Appellant:
The Timken Company
Defendant-Appellee:
United States
E-PASS TECH V 3COM
as 08-1144
Defendant-Appellee:
3COM Corporation (also known as 3COM, Inc.), Access Systems Americas, Inc. (formerly Palmsource Inc.), Handspring, Inc. and others
Plaintiff-Appellant:
E-Pass Technologies, Inc.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
