Intellectual Property Cases
Cases 61 - 70 of 80
Derian Hickman v. Alderson Court Transcripts Ser, et al Featured Case
as 10-5212
Plaintiff - Appellant: Derian Douglas Hickman
Defendant - Appellee: Alderson Court Transcripts Service For The Supreme Court, Copyright Royalty Board, United States Patent and Trademark Office and others
Cornell Cornish v. David Kappos, et al
as 10-5236
Plaintiff - Appellant: Cornell D.M. Judge Cornish
Defendant - Appellee: David J. Kappos, in his Official Capacity as Under-Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Harry I. Moatz, in his Official Capacity as Director, Office of Enrollment and Discipline , U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and others
Association For Molecular Pathology et al v. United States Patent and Trademark Office et al Featured Case We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 1:2009cv04515
Plaintiff: Association For Molecular Pathology, Association For Molecular Pathology, Association For Molecular Pathology and others
Defendant: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Myriad Genetics, Lorris Betz and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201 Declaratory Judgement
Cornell Cornish v. David Kappos, et al
as 10-5223
Plaintiff - Appellant: Cornell D.M. Judge Cornish
Defendant - Appellee: David J. Kappos, in his Official Capacity as Under-Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Harry I. Moatz, in his Official Capacity as Director, Office of Enrollment and Discipline , U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and others
HICKMAN v. ALDERSON COURT TRANSCRIPTS SERVICE FOR THE SUPREME COURT et al
as 1:2010cv00922
Plaintiff: DERIAN DOUGLAS HICKMAN
Defendant: ALDERSON COURT TRANSCRIPTS SERVICE FOR THE SUPREME COURT, COPYRIGHT ROYALTY BOARD, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Tafas v. Dudas et al Featured Case We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 1:2007cv00846
Plaintiff: Triantafyllos Tafas and Triantafyllos Tafas
Defendant: Jon Dudas and The United States Patent and Trademark Office
Amicu: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Biotechnology Industry Organization, Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and others
Consolidated Plaintiff: SmithKline Beecham Corporation, SmithKline Beecham Corporation, SmithKline Beecham Corporation and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201 Declaratory Judgment
Cornell Cornish v. Jon Dudas, et al
as 10-5096
Plaintiff - Appellant: Cornell D.M. Judge Cornish
Defendant - Appellee: Jon Dudas, in his Official Capacity as Under-Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Harry I. Moatz, in his Official Capacity as Director, Office of Enrollment and Discipline , U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and others
Michael Kroll v. David Kappos, et al
as 10-5070
Plaintiff - Appellant: Michael I. Kroll, Patent Attorney
Defendant - Appellee: David J. Kappos, in his Official Capacity as Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office and Harry I. Moatz, in his Official Capacity as Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Sigram Schindler Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH v. Kappos et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 1:2009cv00935
Plaintiff: Sigram Schindler Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH
Defendant: David J. Kappos and United States Patent and Trademark Office
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 0706 Judicial Review of Agency Action
Dell Inc. v. Kappos et al
as 1:2009cv00918
Plaintiff: Dell Inc. and Dell Inc.
Defendant: David J. Kappos and United States Patent and Trademark Office
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act

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.


Why Is My Information Online?