UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. Ex parte VIRUN, INC. Appellant
|
|
- Laureen Patterson
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case: Document: 1-2 Page: 5 Filed: 12/03/2015 (6 of 57) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte VIRUN, INC. Appellant Patent 8,282,977 Technology Center 3900 Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION Appellant appeals from the decision of the Patent Reexamination Specialist to reject claims 1, 2, 7, 9-26, and 28-36, which are all of the claims now pending in this ex parte reexamination proceeding. We have jurisdiction based on 35 U.S.C. 6, 134, and 306. We AFFIRM. Background Patent No. US 8,282,977 B2 issued October 9, On the October 9, 2012 issue date, a request for ex parte reexamination of all claims of this patent (i.e., claims 1-35) was filed by a Third-Party Requester pursuant to
2 35 U.S.C and 37 C.P.R The request was granted. In the Final Action dated September 23, 2013, the Specialist maintained rejections of the claims on appeal. The subject appeal followed. Appellant claims a liquid nanoemulsion concentrate comprising a PEG-derivative of Vitamin E, namely, tocopherol polyethylene glycol 1000 succinate (TPGS-1 000), a polar solvent, and a non-polar active ingredient (claim 1) as well as a method for preparing a powder which comprises spray- or freeze-drying the liquid nanoemulsion concentrate (claim 29) and a method of providing an oil-based additive in a beverage which comprises adding the liquid nanoemulsion concentrate to an aqueous medium (claim 33). A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, appears below with bracketing and underlining respectively identifying subject matter deleted from or added to claim 1 of the patent. Case: Document: 1-2 Page: 6 Filed: 12/03/2015 (7 of 57) 1. A liquid nanoemulsion concentrate, comprising: a PEG-derivative of Vitamin E in an amount between 16% and 30% [or about 30%], by weight, of the concentrate.l. wherein the PEG-derivative of Vitamin E is a tocopherol polyethylene glycol 1000 succinate (TPGS-1 000); a polar solvent in an amount between about 60% and 79% by weight, of the concentrate; and a non-polar active ingredient selected from among any one or more of polyunsaturated fatty acids, Coenzyme Q 10 compounds and phytosterols, wherein the non-polar active ingredient is present in an amount between 5% or about 5% and 10% or about 10%, by weight, of the concentrate, wherein: the concentrate is a liquid nanoemulsion concentrate. 2
3 Case: Document: 1-2 Page: 7 Filed: 12/03/2015 (8 of 57) The Rejections based on Borowy-Borowski et al. (US 6,045,826 issued Apr. 4, 2000, hereinafter Borowski 826) Under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the Specialist rejects claim 1 as unpatentable over Borowski 826 and rejects the remaining claims on appeal as unpatentable over this reference alone or in combination with additional prior art (Final Action 7-19). These rejections rely on the Specialist's finding that the concentrates of Borowski 826 are inherently nanoemulsion concentrates as required by claim 1 (id. at 10; Ans. 19,,-r bridging 59-60). It is undisputed that Borowski 826 does not expressly teach the disclosed concentrates are in the form of an emulsion. Further, the Specialist does not identify any Borowski 826 disclosure of preparation steps (e.g., a homogenization step) that unquestionably and necessarily would produce an emulsion concentrate. Most significantly, Appellant's challenge of the Specialist's finding includes evidence, in the form of a Declaration under 37 C.P.R dated May 6, 2013 by Philip J. Bromley (hereinafter Declaration I), that procedures exemplified by Borowski 826 do not yield an emulsion concentrate (see, e.g., App. Br , Decl. I 3-5). The Specialist considers this Declaration I evidence to be contradicted by another Bromley Declaration of record dated November 25,2013 (hereinafter Declaration II). According to the Specialist, "Declaration II proves that using a similar method as in Borowski '826 results in a nanoemulsion concentrate, as here claimed" (Ans. 61 ). However, the Specialist does not explain why the methods of Declaration II and Borowski 826 are believed to be similar such that both produce a nanoemulsion. In 3
4 contrast, Appellant provides a detailed exposition of differences between these methods whereby an emulsion is formed in Declaration II but not in Borowski 826 (Reply Br ). The Specialist also disparages the evidentiary value of Declaration I by stating that Mr. Bromley's failure to achieve nanoemulsions in reproducing the Borowski 826 examples may have been due to "no interest in succeeding" (Ans. 62) and correspondingly that "[i]t is to be presumed that skilled workers would as a matter of course, if they do not immediately obtained desired results make certain experiments and adaptations, within the skill of the competent worker" (id.; emphasis added). The clear deficiency of the Specialist's statement is that Borowski 826 contains no teaching that nanoemulsions are desired results. As expressly conceded by the Examiner, "Borowski '826 does not use the terminology 'nanoemulsion' to describe the solubilized concentrates" (id. at 59). The arguments and evidence in the record of this appeal lead us to determine that the Examiner erred in finding the Borowski 826 concentrates are inherently nanoemulsion concentrates Case: Document: 1-2 Page: 8 Filed: 12/03/2015 (9 of 57) We do not sustain, therefore, the 103 rejections based on Borowski The Rejection based on Borowy-Borowski et al. (US 2008/ A1 published Oct. 16, 2008, hereinafter Borowski 188) Under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the Specialist also rejects claims 1, 2, 7, 9-26, and (i.e., all appealed claims) as unpatentable over Borowski 188 (Final Action 19-28). 4
5 Case: Document: 1-2 Page: 9 Filed: 12/03/2015 (10 of 57) The Specialist finds that Borowski 188 exemplifies liquid nanoemulsion concentrates of the general type defined by claim 1 except the exemplified concentrates contain a PTS vitamin E derivative as a solubilizing agent rather than the claimed TPGS (id. at (citing inter alia Borowski 188,-r,-r 372 and 377)). The Specialist additionally finds that TPGS is a known vitamin E derivative solubilizing agent which is encompassed by the solubilizing agent general formula IV of Borowski 188 (id. at 21 ). Based on these findings, the Specialist concludes that it would have been obvious to prepare the exemplified nanoemulsion concentrates of Borowski 188 using TPGS, for example TPGS-1 000, rather than PTS as the solubilizing agent (id. ). Appellant concedes that TPGS is encompassed by the solubilizing agent general formula of Borowski 188 but nevertheless contends that no prima facie case of obviousness has been established for claim 1 (App. Br ). Specifically, Appellant argues that Borowski 188 "directs an ordinary artisan away from employing TPGS in its emulsions instead of PTS... despite the knowledge of TPGS and its availability in the art" (id. at 38; bolding removed) because "TPGS is not a preferred solubilizing agent [for the Borowski 188 emulsions]" (id.). We agree with the Specialist that Appellant's argument is not persuasive (Ans. 31 ). "A statement that a particular combination is not a preferred embodiment does not teach away absent clear discouragement of that combination." Syntex LLC v. Apotex, Inc., 407 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Appellant fails to identify any clear discouragement in Borowski 188 of a nanoemulsion concentrate comprising TPGS rather than PTS. 5
6 Case: Document: 1-2 Page: 10 Filed: 12/03/2015 (11 of 57) Appellant relies on the above unsuccessful argument in contesting the establishment of a prima facie case of obviousness for remaining claims 2, 7, 9-26, and (App. Br ) but does not present with any reasonable specificity additional arguments regarding a prima facie case for these claims (see id. ). Appellant also challenges the Borowski 188 rejection via data in Declarations I and II that are said to evince unexpected results with respect to nanoemulsion concentrates containing the claimed TPGS rather than the PTS exemplified by Borowski 188 (see, e.g., App. Br ; Decl. I 11 (Table 6), 14 (Table 7), 16 (Table 9); Decl. II,-r bridging 1-2, 9-12 (Tables 2-5)). 1 Specifically, Appellant argues "[i]n all cases, Declaration I shows that... dilution compositions of TPGS-containing emulsion concentrates had substantially lower turbidity and were more clear than corresponding dilution compositions ofpts-containing concentrates" (App. Br. 49; bolding removed). Regarding Declaration II, Appellant similarly argues "in all cases, the generated liquid nanoemulsion concentrates containing TPGS produce dilution compositions that have a substantially lower turbidity (NTU), and hence are more clear, than corresponding dilution compositions prepared from PTS-containing nanoemulsion concentrates" (id. at 51-52; bolding removed). 1 Appellant also refers of certain Figures of Declaration I as visually depicting improved clarity when using TPGS rather than PTS (see, e.g., App. Br. 49 and 59). However, these Figures have limited evidentiary value because they are displayed as black and white images in the Image File Wrapper for the subject reexamination proceeding. We emphasize that the Image File Wrapper defines the official file record of this appeal (see 37 C.P.R (2012)). 6
7 Case: Document: 1-2 Page: 11 Filed: 12/03/2015 (12 of 57) The Specialist gives several reasons for considering Declarations I and II to be not convincing ofnonobviousness (Ans ). We do not agree with every one of these reasons. However, to the extent outlined below, we find merit in the Specialist's determination that the evidence of Declarations I and II is not reasonably commensurate with the scope of the rejected claims (see, e.g., id. at 36 and 46). See In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("Evidence of secondary considerations must be reasonably commensurate with the scope of the claims."). As repeatedly emphasized by the Specialist and as indicated by Appellant's above quoted arguments, the comparisons which are said to show unexpected results are not the claimed TPGS-containing concentrates and the Borowski 188 PTS-containing concentrates but rather dilution compositions comprising such concentrates diluted in water. In particular, the dilution compositions were prepared by adding 1 gram of each concentrate to 8 ounces of drinking water (Decl. I 11, Decl. II 9). The record contains no direct evidence that the results exhibited by these dilution compositions also would be exhibited by the corresponding concentrates. In the absence of such evidence, we have no way of determining whether one with ordinary skill in this art would consider the claimed TPGS-containing concentrates to exhibit unexpectedly superior turbidity and clarity characteristics relative to the PTS-containing concentrates exemplified by Borowski 188. Appellant appreciates the above distinction between the claims and the comparisons but argues that "the turbidity of the dilution compositions directly correlate[ s ], and thereby directly relate[ s] back to, the turbidity of 7
8 Case: Document: 1-2 Page: 12 Filed: 12/03/2015 (13 of 57) the nanoemulsion concentrate by the dilution factor used to prepare the dilution compositions" (App. Br. 61; bolding removed). The deficiency of this argument is that it is not supported by direct evidence. For all we know based on the record before us, a comparison of the concentrates claimed by Appellant and exemplified by Borowski 188 would fail to exhibit any meaningful, much less unexpected, difference in turbidity or clarity. Appellant further argues that unexpected results adequate to establish nonobviousness have been shown by the singular use of the claimed concentrates in the specific dilution compositions of the comparative showing (id. at 62-63). As support for this argument, Appellant cites In re Chupp, 816 F.2d 643, 646 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (id. at 62). Appellant's argument lacks convincing merit because it assumes that the claimed concentrates have been shown to exhibit unexpected results. For the reasons previously discussed, this assumption is not correct. Importantly, even if Declarations I and II were considered to evince that the TPGS-containing concentrates of the claims exhibit apparently unexpectedly superior turbidity results compared to the PTS-containing concentrates exemplified by Borowski 188, Appellant still would fail to establish nonobviousness. "While secondary considerations must be taken into account, they do not necessarily control the obviousness determination." Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 752 F.3d 967, 977 (Fed. Cir. 2014). "'[D]ifferences in degree' of a known and expected property are not as persuasive in rebutting obviousness as differences in 'kind'-i.e., a new property dissimilar to the known property."!d. "When assessing unexpected 8
9 Case: Document: 1-2 Page: 13 Filed: 12/03/2015 (14 of 57) properties, therefore, we must evaluate the significance and 'kind' of expected results along with the unexpected results."!d. Here, the Examiner finds and Appellant does not dispute that Borowski 188 discloses liquid nanoemulsion concentrates and beverages containing such concentrates which are essentially clear in that they have small median particle sizes and low turbidity values (i.e., the NTU values discussed by Appellant (see, e.g., App. Br )) (see, e.g., Final Action (citing,-r,-r of Borowski 188)). This disclosure shows that Borowski 188 and Appellant share a common goal of producing nanoemulsion concentrates for use in beverages having a desired high clarity and low turbidity property. Accordingly, the asserted turbidity difference between the respective concentrates claimed by Appellant and exemplified by Borowski 188 may be characterized fairly as a difference in degree of a known and expected property (i.e., the property of low turbidity and concomitantly high clarity). Because the lower turbidity results said by Appellant to be exhibited by the claimed TPGS-containing concentrates represent differences in degree, they are not as persuasive in rebutting obviousness as differences in kind involving a property dissimilar from the known property of low turbidity. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 752 F.3d at 977. For this reason, our consideration of the record as a whole leads us to determine that Appellant's evidence of lower turbidity differences in degree does not outweigh the substantial evidence of obviousness established by Borowski 188. Additionally, we reiterate that Borowski 188 discloses nanoemulsion concentrates for use in beverages with the goal of obtaining the property of low turbidity and high clarity wherein the concentrate ingredients comprise 9
10 Case: Document: 1-2 Page: 14 Filed: 12/03/2015 (15 of 57) solubilizing agents that include the TPGS solubilizing agent claimed by Appellant. This Borowski 18 8 disclosure supports a determination that an artisan would have developed the claimed concentrate merely by routine testing of the Borowski 188 solubilizing agents in order to optimize selection of the solubilizing agent which yielded a superior difference in degree for the low turbidity and high clarity property desired by Borowski 188. Therefore, the fact that the claimed TPGS-containing concentrates exhibit a superior known property relative to the PTS-containing concentrates exemplified by Borowski 188 is more indicative of obviousness based on routine optimization than nonobviousness based on unexpected results. This additional analysis reinforces our earlier determination that the record as a whole supports an ultimate conclusion of obviousness. Moreover, as indicated previously, even assuming Appellant showed the claimed concentrates exhibit unexpectedly superior turbidity results, this secondary consideration would be inadequate to overcome the strong showing of obviousness created by Borowski 188. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, (Fed. Cir. 2007) ("The fact that amlodipine besylate was the best of the seven acid addition salts actually tested proves nothing more than routine optimization that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art... Alternatively,... even if Pfizer showed... unexpectedly superior results, this secondary consideration does not overcome the strong showing of obviousness in this case. Although secondary considerations must be taken into account, they do not necessarily control the obviousness conclusion."). 10
11 Case: Document: 1-2 Page: 15 Filed: 12/03/2015 (16 of 57) In summary, Appellant's arguments and evidence regarding unexpected results are not persuasive of patentability with respect to any of the rejected claims for the reasons stated above. Accordingly, we sustain the 103 rejection of all appealed claims as unpatentable over Borowski 188. Conclusion The decision of the Specialist is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R ( a). AFFIRMED bar 11
12 Case: Document: 1-2 Page: 16 Filed: 12/03/2015 (17 of 57) Patent Owner STEPHANIE SEIDMAN MCKENNA LONG & ALDREIDGE LLP 4435 EASTGATE MALL SUITE400 SAN DIEGO, CA Third Party Requester HANSRA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW 1313 E MAPLE STREET SUITE 223 BELLINGHAM, W A
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte ANDREA VENTURELLI Appeal 2010-007594 Technology Center 3700 Before ERIC GRIMES, LORA M. GREEN, and
More informationEx parte MICHAEL WAYNE SHORE
Case: 16-1461 Document: 1-4 Page: 7 Filed: 01/12/2016 (10 of 21) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL WAYNE SHORE Appeal 2012-008394 Technology
More informationThe opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case: 16-2287 Document: 46-2 Page: 1 Filed: 09/08/2017 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit SOUTHWIRE COMPANY, Appellant v. CERRO WIRE LLC, FKA CERRO WIRE, INC., Appellee 2016-2287 Appeal
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit DYNAMIC DRINKWARE, LLC, Appellant v. NATIONAL GRAPHICS, INC., Appellee 2015-1214 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. Appeal Application 13/294,044 2 Technology Center 3600 DECISION ON APPEAL
Case: 17-2069 Document: 1-2 Page: 13 Filed: 05/23/2017 (14 of 24) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARIO VILLENA and JOSE VILLENA 1 2 Technology
More informationPlease find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
More informationPaper Entered: April 21, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10 571-272-7822 Entered: April 21, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD APOTEX INC. Petitioner v. WYETH LLC Patent Owner Case IPR2014-00115
More informationOverview of the USPTO Appeal Process and Practice Tips
Overview of the USPTO Appeal Process and Practice Tips Scott Wolinsky April 12, 2017 2017 Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP Decision Factors for Filing Appeal at USPTO - Advancement of Prosecution has
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit IN RE: AT&T INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY II, L.P., Appellant 2016-1830 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES. Ex parte GEORGE R. BORDEN IV
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte GEORGE R. BORDEN IV Technology Center 2100 Decided: January 7, 2010 Before JAMES T. MOORE and ALLEN
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES. Ex parte MITSUHIRO NADA
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte MITSUHIRO NADA Appeal 2010-011219 Technology Center 3600 Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, Vice Chief Administrative
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit IN RE: DDMB, INC., Appellant 2016-2037 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark
More informationPaper No Entered: May 3, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 16 571-272-7822 Entered: May 3, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SANDOZ INC., Petitioner, v. ABBVIE BIOTECHNOLOGY LTD.,
More informationPaper Entered: July 31, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 18 571-272-7822 Entered: July 31, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD TRW AUTOMOTIVE US LLC, Petitioner, v. MAGNA ELECTRONICS,
More informationPlease find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE In re Application of: Response to Office Action Nat G. Adkins JR. Group Art Unit: 3623 Serial No.: 12/648,897 Examiner: Gills, Kurtis Filed: December 29,
More informationPaper Entered: May 29, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 28 571-272-7822 Entered: May 29, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION Petitioner, v. PERSONAL AUDIO,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IN RE JOHN NICHOLAS GROSS Serial No. 10/770,767
Case: 14-1474 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 10/17/2014 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IN RE JOHN NICHOLAS GROSS 2014-1474 Serial No. 10/770,767 Appeal from the United States Patent
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. REDFIN CORPORATION Petitioner
Trials@uspto.gov 571-272-7822 Paper No. 12 Date Entered: March 20, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD REDFIN CORPORATION Petitioner v. CORELOGIC SOLUTIONS,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit SPHERIX INCORPORATED, Appellant v. JOSEPH MATAL, PERFORMING THE FUNCTIONS & DUTIES OF THE UNDER SECRETARY
More informationEx p arte APPLE, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant
Case: 16-1402 Document: 1-2 Page: 6 Filed: 01/04/2016 (7 of 55) UNITED ST A TES PA TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex p arte APPLE, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Appea12014-007899
More informationUnited States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals
Cite as: Size Appeal of Veterans Technology, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5763 (2016) United States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals DECISION FOR PUBLIC RELEASE SIZE APPEAL OF: Veterans
More informationPlease find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Reexamination Nos. 90/003,346 and 90/003,873) IN RE BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 99-1463 (Reexamination Nos. 90/003,346 and 90/003,873) IN RE BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED Kenneth Solomon, Howell & Haferkamp, L.C., of St. Louis, Missouri,
More informationCase: Document: 27 Page: 1 Filed: 06/05/
Case: 18-1586 Document: 27 Page: 1 Filed: 06/05/2018 2018-1586 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IN RE INTELLIGENT MEDICAL OBJECTS, INC., Appellant. Appeal from the United States Patent
More informationUnited States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals
Cite as: Size Appeal of EASTCO Building Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5437 (2013) United States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals SIZE APPEAL OF: EASTCO Building Services, Inc.,
More informationPaper 16 Tel: Entered: April 23, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 16 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: April 23, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD PNY TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Petitioner v. PHISON ELECTRONICS
More informationPlease find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Carl J. Greco, P.C. : a/k/a Greco Law Associates, P.C., : Petitioner : : v. : No. 304 C.D. 2017 : Argued: December 7, 2017 Department of Labor and Industry, :
More informationAPPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/986,966 11/27/2007 Edward K.Y. Jung SE US 4625
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
More informationRK Mailed: May 24, 2013
This Decision is a Precedent of the TTAB UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trademark Trial and Appeal Board P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451 RK Mailed: May 24, 2013 Cancellation No. 92055645
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) Environmental Chemical Corporation ) ASBCA No. 54141 ) Under Contract Nos. DACA45-95-D-0026 ) et al. ) APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ELBIT SYSTEMS OF AMERICA, LLC, Appellant v. THALES VISIONIX, INC., Appellee 2017-1355 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. FIDELITY NATIONAL INFORMATION SERVICES, INC.
Trials@uspto.gov 571-272-7822 Paper 51 Date Entered: December 22, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD FIDELITY NATIONAL INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., Petitioner,
More informationWORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION WT/DS46/AB/RW 21 July 2000 (00-2990) Original: English BRAZIL EXPORT FINANCING PROGRAMME FOR AIRCRAFT RECOURSE BY CANADA TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU AB-2000-3 Report of the Appellate
More informationPaper Entered: September 13, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 81 571-272-7822 Entered: September 13, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SAP AMERICA, INC. Petitioner, v. VERSATA DEVELOPMENT
More informationPaper 25 Tel: Entered: June 1, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 25 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: June 1, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SURE-FIRE ELECTRICAL CORPORATION, 1 Petitioner, v. YONGJIANG
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Peter McLauchlan v. Case: CIR 12-60657 Document: 00512551524 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/06/2014Doc. 502551524 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT PETER A. MCLAUCHLAN, United States
More informationPlease find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit KELLY L. STEPHENSON, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent. 2012-3074 Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board
More informationInformation Disclosure to the USPTO: How Much Information is Required and What Constitutes a Reasonable Inquiry
Information Disclosure to the USPTO: How Much Information is Required and What Constitutes a Reasonable Inquiry W. Todd Baker Attorney at Law 703-412-6383 TBAKER@oblon.com 2 Topics of Discussion 2006 Proposed
More informationFiled on behalf of Petitioner Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC
Filed on behalf of Petitioner Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC By: Todd R. Walters, Esq. Roger H. Lee, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC 1737 King Street, Suite 500 Alexandria, Virginia 22314-2727
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ASSOCIATION OF BUSINESSES ADVOCATING TARIFF EQUITY, v Appellant, MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and DETROIT EDISON, UNPUBLISHED June 24, 2004 No. 246912 MPSC LC No.
More informationIn re the Marriage of: CYNTHIA JEAN VAN LEEUWEN, Petitioner/Appellant, RICHARD ALLEN VAN LEEUWEN, Respondent/Appellee. No.
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationUnited States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals
Cite as: Size Appeal of Alutiiq International Solutions, LLC, SBA No. (2009) United States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals SIZE APPEAL OF: Alutiiq International Solutions,
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS ) ) ) ) ) OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WOODROW ON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of - LKJ Crabbe Inc. Under Contract No. W9124E-15-D-0002 APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARNCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 60331 Mr. Kevin Crabbe President
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Page 1 of 12 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 00-1283 (Serial No. 29/058,031) IN RE TSUTOMU HARUNA and SADAO KITA Andrew J. Patch, Young & Thompson, of Arlington, Virginia, argued
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 04-3376 JAMES A. KOKKINIS, v. Petitioner,
More informationPaper 11 Tel: Entered: August 3, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 11 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: August 3, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.
More informationPlease find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
More informationSubpart B Ex Parte Appeals. in both. Other parallel citations are discouraged.
PATENT RULES 41.30 41.10 Correspondence addresses. Except as the Board may otherwise direct, (a) Appeals. Correspondence in an application or a patent involved in an appeal (subparts B and C of this part)
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 8:03-cv-01031-JVS-SGL Document 250 Filed 03/17/2009 Page 1 of 7 Present: The James V. Selna Honorable Karla J. Tunis Deputy Clerk Not Present Court Reporter Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys
More informationDesignated for electronic publication only UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS NO Before GREENBERG, Judge. MEMORANDUM DECISION
Designated for electronic publication only UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS NO. 13-333 GLEN P. HOFFMANN, APPELLANT, V. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE. Before
More informationPaper Entered: 15 August 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10 571-272-7822 Entered: 15 August 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD DOMINION DEALER SOLUTIONS, LLC. Petitioner v. AUTOALERT,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit REALTIME DATA, LLC, DBA IXO, Appellant v. ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT
More informationUnited States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals
Cite as: Size Appeal of Kadix Systems, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5016 (2008) United States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals SIZE APPEAL OF: Kadix Systems, LLC Appellant SBA No. SIZ-5016
More informationDesignated for electronic publication only UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS NO Before SCHOELEN, Judge. MEMORANDUM DECISION
Designated for electronic publication only UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS NO. 14-3623 PHILIP M. DOBBINS, APPELLANT, V. ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE. Before
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ICON HEALTH AND FITNESS, INC., Appellant v. STRAVA, INC., UA CONNECTED FITNESS, INC., Appellees 2016-1475 Appeal from the United States Patent and
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA City of Scranton v. No. 2342 C.D. 2009 Fire Fighters Local Union No. 60, The Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development and the Pennsylvania
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeals of -- ) ) ATK Launch Systems, Inc. ) ASBCA Nos. 55395, 55418, 55812 ) Under Contract Nos. NAS8-38100 et al. ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES
More information[NOTE: The following annotated sections of the C.F.R. are from BNA s Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Regulations,
[NOTE: The following annotated sections of the C.F.R. are from BNA s Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Regulations, edited by James D. Crowne, and are current as of June 1, 2003.] APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF
More informationAPPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/045,902 01/16/2002 Shunpei Yamazaki
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Salieri Group, Inc., : Appellant : : v. : No. 781 C.D. 2015 : Submitted: November 17, 2015 Beaver County Auxiliary Appeal : Board, County of Beaver, Big : Beaver
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS. Appeals of -- ) ) Applied Companies, Inc. ) ASBCA Nos , ) Under Contract No. SPO D-0108 )
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeals of -- ) ) Applied Companies, Inc. ) ASBCA Nos. 50749, 54506 ) Under Contract No. SPO450-94-D-0108 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCE FOR THE GOVERNMENT:
More informationNo. 45,945-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * Versus * * * * *
Judgment rendered January 26, 2011. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P. No. 45,945-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * CITIBANK
More informationChapter VI. Credit Bidding s Impact on Professional Fees
Chapter VI Credit Bidding s Impact on Professional Fees American Bankruptcy Institute A. Should the Amount of the Credit Bid Be Included as Consideration Upon Which a Professional s Fee Is Calculated?
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re: MARK RICHARD LIPPOLD, Debtor. 1 FOR PUBLICATION Chapter 7 Case No. 11-12300 (MG) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit MORRIS SHELKOFSKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee. 2013-5083 Appeal from the
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Grand Prix Harrisburg, LLC, : Appellant : : v. : No. 2037 C.D. 2011 : Argued: June 4, 2012 Dauphin County Board of : Assessment Appeals, Dauphin : County, Central
More informationIn Re: Downey Financial Corp
2015 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-26-2015 In Re: Downey Financial Corp Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015
More information(period: January-December 2016)
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Competition DG 1. Introduction 8 th Report on the Monitoring of Patent Settlements (period: January-December 2016) Published on 9 March 2018 (1) As announced in the Commission's Communication
More informationCase 2:08-cv CEH-SPC Document 38 Filed 03/30/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FT.
Case 2:08-cv-00277-CEH-SPC Document 38 Filed 03/30/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FT. MYERS DIVISION NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. CASE
More informationUnited States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals
Cite as: Size Appeal of Advent Environmental, Inc., SBA No. (2012) United States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals SIZE APPEAL OF: Advent Environmental, Inc., Appellant, SBA
More informationUNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2015 ARTHUR LAMAR RODGERS STATE OF MARYLAND
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2879 September Term, 2015 ARTHUR LAMAR RODGERS v. STATE OF MARYLAND Beachley, Shaw Geter, Thieme, Raymond G., Jr. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned),
More informationUnited States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals
Cite as: Matter of Robra Construction, Inc., SBA No. VET-160 (2009) United States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals IN THE MATTER OF: Robra Construction, Inc. Appellant SBA No.
More informationIN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT Case No.: SC Petitioner, BRENDA W. NIX,
----------------------------------------------- -------- IN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT Case No.: SC06-1326 ----------------------------------------------- -------- RICHARD A. NIX, Petitioner, v. BRENDA
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
2:15-cv-11394-MFL-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 05/10/16 Pg 1 of 10 Pg ID 191 TIFFANY ALLEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION v. Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-11394 Hon. Matthew
More informationDesignated for electronic publication only UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS NO Before SCHOELEN, Judge. MEMORANDUM DECISION
Designated for electronic publication only UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS NO. 13-328 RONALD FRADKIN, APPELLANT, V. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE. Before
More informationSTATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT
[Cite as Target Natl. Bank v. Loncar, 2013-Ohio-3350.] STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT TARGET NATIONAL BANK, ) CASE NO. 12 MA 104 ) PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, ) ) VS. )
More informationUnited States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals
Cite as: Size Appeal of LGS Management, Inc., SBA No. (2010) United States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals SIZE APPEAL OF: LGS Management, Inc. Appellant SBA No. Decided: October
More informationUnited States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals
Cite as: Size Appeal of Potomac River Group, LLC, SBA No. (2017) United States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals SIZE APPEAL OF: Potomac River Group, LLC, Appellant, SBA No.
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS. Appeal of -- ) ) Applied Companies, Inc. ) ASBCA No ) Under Contract No. SPO D-0108 )
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) Applied Companies, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 54506 ) Under Contract No. SPO450-94-D-0108 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCE FOR THE GOVERNMENT:
More informationUNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Before KERN, MAGGS, and MARTIN Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES, Appellee v. Specialist JIMMY RODRIGUEZ United States Army, Appellant ARMY 20110153 Headquarters,
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeals of -- ) ) VLOX, LLC ) ) Under Contract No. W91B4N-09-D-5005 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA Nos. 59305, 59306, 59307
More informationAPPLE INC. S SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION
Case5:06-cv-05208-JF Document169 Filed03/15/11 Page1 of 6 1 GEORGE A. RILEY (S.B. No. 118304) ROBERT D. TRONNES (S.B. No. 209835) 2 VIVI T. LEE (S.B. No. 247513) O MELVENY & MYERS LLP 3 Two Embarcadero
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) BAE Systems Southeast Shipyards Mayport LLC ) ) Under Contract No. N00024-1 O-C-4406 ) APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT:
More informationErcole Mirarchi v. Seneca Specialty Insurance Com
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-29-2014 Ercole Mirarchi v. Seneca Specialty Insurance Com Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS, TEXAS. VS. NOS CR and CR THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS, TEXAS RONALD DEMOND JOHNSON, Appellant VS. NOS. 05-09-00494-CR and 05-09-00495-CR THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. ON APPEAL FROM THE 363RD
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) Allison Transmission, Inc. ) ) Under Contract No. DAAE07-99-C-N031 ) APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 59204
More informationDesignated for electronic publication only UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS NO Before MOORMAN, Judge. MEMORANDUM DECISION
Designated for electronic publication only UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS NO. 14-1434 JEFFREY G. KINDER, APPELLANT, V. ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE. Before
More informationUnited States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals
Cite as: Size Appeal of Henderson Group Unlimited, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5034 (2009) United States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals SIZE APPEAL OF: Henderson Group Unlimited, Inc.
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) The Swanson Group, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 52109 ) Under Contract No. N68711-91-C-9509 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT:
More informationAttorneys for Plaintiff in Intervention GARNIK MNATSAKANYAN FAMILY INTER-VIVOS TRUST
-- {.00-0.DOC-(} Case :0-cv-00-DDP-JEM Document Filed 0//0 Page of 0 RUTTER HOBBS & DAVIDOFF INCORPORATED WESLEY D. HURST (State Bar No. RISA J. MORRIS (State Bar No. 0 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 00 Los
More informationUnited States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals
Cite as: Size Appeal of Saint George Industries, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5474 (2013) United States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals SIZE APPEAL OF: Saint George Industries, LLC, Appellant,
More informationF I L E D September 1, 2011
Case: 10-30837 Document: 00511590776 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/01/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D September 1, 2011
More informationDesignated for electronic publication only UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS NO Before SCHOELEN, Judge. MEMORANDUM DECISION
Designated for electronic publication only UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS NO. 10-2391 PETER J. KONDOS, APPELLANT, V. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE. SCHOELEN,
More informationPatrick D. Easterling, Appellant, v. United States Postal Service, Agency.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 2008 MSPB 214 Docket No. AT-0752-08-0292-I-1 Patrick D. Easterling, Appellant, v. United States Postal Service, Agency. September 19, 2008 John R.
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS. Appeal of -- ) ) Shawview Cleaners, LLC ) ASBCA No ) Under Contract No.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) Shawview Cleaners, LLC ) ASBCA No. 56938 ) Under Contract No. SHA 05-602 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Allen
More information