Cases 1 - 10 of 44
Clemente Properties, Inc., et al v. Pierluisi-Urrutia, et al
as 23-1922
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CLEMENTE PROPERTIES, INC., 21 IN RIGHT, INC., ROBERTO CLEMENTE, JR. and others
Defendant / Appellee:
HON. PEDRO R. PIERLUISI-URRUTIA, in his official capacity as Governor of the Commonwealth and in his personal capacity, COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, EILEEN M. VELEZ-VEGA, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Public Works and in her personal capacity and others
Locke v. Under Secretary of Commerce of Intellectual Property et al
as 1:2023cv01288
Plaintiff:
Wendell Terry Locke
Defendant:
Under Secretary of Commerce of Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1071 Appeal of Decision of U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
Perry v. PTO
as 23-1812
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MICHAEL A. PERRY
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Defendant:
KATHERINE K. VIDAL, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, WENDY GARBER, Director Patent Technology Center, DARNELL JAYNE, Director and others
ImmunoGen, Inc. v. Vidal
as 23-1762
Plaintiff / Appellant:
IMMUNOGEN, INC.
Defendant / Appellee:
KATHERINE K. VIDAL, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Bhagat v. PTO
as 23-1545
Plaintiff / Appellant:
URVASHI BHAGAT
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE and KATHERINE K. VIDAL, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Urvashi Bhagat v. United States Patent & Trademark Office
as 23-1118
Plaintiff / Appellant:
URVASHI BHAGAT
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE and KATHI VIDAL, in her official capacity as Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Urvashi Bhagat v. United States Patent & Trademark Office
as 23-1055
Plaintiff / Appellant:
URVASHI BHAGAT
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE, ANDREI IANCU, in his official capacity as Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and KATHI VIDAL, in her official capacity as Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
League of American Autochthorn Heir Tribal Nation et al. v. United States of America et al.
as 3:2022cv07155
Plaintiff:
The League of American Autochthon Heir Tribal Nation, BBYW Holding, Government Entity, Numinutitska Penatekawa Tribal Trust and others
Defendant:
UNITED ST ATES OF AMERICA, Successor or Assigns., GOVERNMENT OF THE CANAL ZONE, United States of America, J. Tom Vilsack doing business as Secretary of Dept. of Agriculture Rural Development and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1338 Patent Infringement
Yan Zhao, et al v. Keqiang Li, et al
as 22-7152
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Yan Zhao, Amer Group LLC, An Bang Group LLC and others
Defendant / Appellee:
Keqiang Li, For his official capacity of The Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), Shuqing Guo, The CCP Party Secretary The Branch Committee of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) for China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission (CBIRC), Hua Yu, the Secretary of the CCP Branch for China Insurance Security Fund Co., Ltd. and others
Yan Zhao, et al v. Keqiang Li, et al
as 22-7138
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Yan Zhao, Amer Group LLC, An Bang Group LLC and others
Defendant / Appellee:
Keqiang Li, For his official capacity of The Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), Shuqing Guo, The CCP Party Secretary The Branch Committee of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) for China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission (CBIRC), Hua Yu, the Secretary of the CCP Branch for China Insurance Security Fund Co., Ltd. and others
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.
