|
Washington Lawyer Search - Listings for Hancock Dian G Law Offices of
Name: Hancock Dian G Law Offices of
Address: 175 Village Rd Lopez Island, WA 98261
Phone Number: 360-468-2760
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
USCA6 Opinion 03a0319p.06 RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2003 FED App. 0319P (6th Cir.) File Name: 03a0319p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _ H.C. MacClaren, Inc., Petitioner, v. United States Department of Agriculture, Respondent. No. 02-3006 On Appeal from an Order of the Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture. No. D-99-0012. Argued: June 11, 2003 Decided and Filed: September 4, 2003 Before: MOORE and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges; SCHWARZER, Senior District Judge.(*) _ COUNSEL ARGUED: Stephen P. McCarron, McCARRON & DIESS, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Stephen M. Reilly, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. ON BRIEF: Stephen P. McCarron, McCARRON & DIESS, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Stephen M. Reilly, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. _ OPINION _ JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Petitioner H.C. MacClaren, Inc. (MacClaren), a wholesale produce broker, appeals a final order of the Secretary of Agriculture revoking its license pursuant...
USCA6 Opinion 03a0319p.06 RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2003 FED App. 0319P (6th Cir.) File Name: 03a0319p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _ H.C. MacClaren, Inc., Petitioner, v. United States Department of Agriculture, Respondent. No. 02-3006 On Appeal from an Order of the Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture. No. D-99-0012. Argued: June 11, 2003 Decided and Filed: September 4, 2003 Before: MOORE and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges; SCHWARZER, Senior District Judge.(*) _ COUNSEL ARGUED: Stephen P. McCarron, McCARRON & DIESS, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Stephen M. Reilly, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. ON BRIEF: Stephen P. McCarron, McCARRON & DIESS, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Stephen M. Reilly, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. _ OPINION _ JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Petitioner H.C. MacClaren, Inc. (MacClaren), a wholesale produce broker, appeals a final order of the Secretary of Agriculture revoking its license pursuant...
MONSANTO CO. v. BAYER BIOSCIENCE N.V. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1201 MONSANTO COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BAYER BIOSCIENCE N.V. (formerly known as Aventis CropScience N.V.) Defendant-Appellant. John F. Lynch, Howrey Simon Arnold & White, LLP, of Houston, Texas, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the brief were Susan K. Knoll, Richard L. Stanley, Steven G. Spears, and Connie Flores Jones. Of counsel on the brief was Joseph P. Conran, Husch & Eppenberger, of St. Louis, Missouri. Eric H. Weisblatt, Burns, Doane, Swecker & Mathis, L.L.P., of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were Susan M. Dadio, R. Danny Huntington, Ronni S. Jillions, Barbara Webb Walker, and Bruce T. Wieder. Appealed from: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri Judge E. Richard Webber United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1201 MONSANTO COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BAYER BIOSCIENCE N.V. (formerly known as Aventis CropScience N.V.), Defendant-Appellant. _ DECIDED: March 30, 2004 _ Before NEWMAN, BRYSON, and PROST, Circuit Judges. BRYSON, Circuit Judge. Monsanto Company filed an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, No. 4:00CV1915, seeking a declaratory judgment that its transgenic corn products did not infringe four patents owned by Aventis CropScience N.V., a predecessor of appellant Bayer BioScience N.V. The patents at issue claim a variety of methods and products relating to the insertion of bacterial DNA into plants to give the plants resistance to certain insects. Besides contending that it did not infringe any of the four patents, Monsanto alleged that the four patents were unenforceable and that various claims of the patents were invalid. Aventis counterclaimed, alleging that Monsanto infringed certain claims of each of the four patents. ...
|
|
|