• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
Displaying 114-128 of 9,118 results

No. 123 MEMORANDUM OPINION

Document CMP Development, LLC v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, 1:21-cv-00549, No. 123 (D.Del. Sep. 29, 2023)
None of these arguments is supported by the record.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 17314

Document In re Roundup Products Liability Litigation, 3:16-md-02741, No. 17314 (N.D.Cal. Sep. 22, 2023)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 17293

Document In re Roundup Products Liability Litigation, 3:16-md-02741, No. 17293 (N.D.Cal. Sep. 14, 2023)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 784 ORDER: Defendants' (dkt

Document City of Seattle v. Monsanto Company et al, 2:16-cv-00107, No. 784 (W.D.Wash. Sep. 13, 2023)
Motion to Exclude TestimonyDenied
) Specifically, the City argues that even if the Court considered Defendants’ new evidence, none of the documents undermine her opinions offered in this case nor demonstrate any improper discrepancy with positions she has offered in ...
cite Cite Document
Analyze

78 Final Written Decision original: Final Written Decision original

Document IPR2022-00722, No. 78 Final Written Decision original - Final Written Decision original (P.T.A.B. Sep. 8, 2023)
Ex. 1061, 33:19–34:15. None of that suggests the SP-304 result in Table 4 is not, in fact, significant.
The only portions of Exhibit 1067 that Petitioner relies upon, i.e., the letter briefs and an expert report submitted by counsel––not the EPO—are none of those things.
None of the authors listed on Liu are ostensibly affiliated with Patent Owner, nor does Liu suggest that their work was supported by Patent Owner.
... Motion improperly argues the weight of the evidence, rather than its admissibility, and is further deficient because Petitioner mischaracterizes the relevance of the challenged Exhibits and manufactures reliability concerns where none ...
cite Cite Document
Analyze
+ More Snippets

17 Final Written Decision original: Final Written Decision original

Document IPR2023-00016, No. 17 Final Written Decision original - Final Written Decision original (P.T.A.B. Sep. 8, 2023)
Ex. 1061, 33:19–34:15. None of that suggests the SP-304 result in Table 4 is not, in fact, significant.
The only portions of Exhibit 1067 that Petitioner relies upon, i.e., the letter briefs and an expert report submitted by counsel––not the EPO—are none of those things.
None of the authors listed on Liu are ostensibly affiliated with Patent Owner, nor does Liu suggest that their work was supported by Patent Owner.
... Motion improperly argues the weight of the evidence, rather than its admissibility, and is further deficient because Petitioner mischaracterizes the relevance of the challenged Exhibits and manufactures reliability concerns where none ...
cite Cite Document
Analyze
+ More Snippets

No. 17246

Document In re Roundup Products Liability Litigation, 3:16-md-02741, No. 17246 (N.D.Cal. Aug. 30, 2023)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 777 ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's 603 Motion to Exclude

Document City of Seattle v. Monsanto Company et al, 2:16-cv-00107, No. 777 (W.D.Wash. Aug. 28, 2023)
Motion to ExcludePartial
Foundation The City next argues Dr. Desvousges’ first opinion lacks foundation because none of the factual sources underpinning his opinion demonstrate the City has designated the LDW an “industrial sanctuary.” (Pl.’s Mot. at 6-7.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

76 Order Other: Order Conduct of the Proceeding

Document IPR2022-00722, No. 76 Order Other - Order Conduct of the Proceeding (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2023)
Before: TINA E. HULSE, CYNTHIA M. HARDMAN, and MICHAEL A. VALEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
Patent Owner seeks authorization to submit an expert report served by Petitioner in a related district court proceeding (“the Zhou report”) as supplemental information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123.
Thus, any need for that information is substantially outweighed by the prejudice and burden of allowing Patent Owner to submit a several-hundred-page expert report, along with additional briefing from the parties regarding that report, less than a month before the statutory deadline for our final written decision.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request to file supplemental information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123 is denied.
Jad Mills Richard Torczon Nicole Stafford Dennis Gregory
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 772

Document City of Seattle v. Monsanto Company et al, 2:16-cv-00107, No. 772 (W.D.Wash. Aug. 18, 2023)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 17127

Document In re Roundup Products Liability Litigation, 3:16-md-02741, No. 17127 (N.D.Cal. Aug. 16, 2023)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

75 Other Hearing transcript: Other Hearing transcript

Document IPR2022-00722, No. 75 Other Hearing transcript - Other Hearing transcript (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2023)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 120

Document Grady et al v. Pharmacia LLC et al, 4:23-cv-00226, No. 120 (W.D.Mo. Aug. 1, 2023)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 17047

Document In re Roundup Products Liability Litigation, 3:16-md-02741, No. 17047 (N.D.Cal. Jul. 28, 2023)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 761

Document City of Seattle v. Monsanto Company et al, 2:16-cv-00107, No. 761 (W.D.Wash. Jul. 19, 2023)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
<< 1 2 3 4 5 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... >>