alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AO 120 (Rev. 08/10) 

TO: Mail Stop 8

Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

P.O. Box 1450

Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

REPORT ON THE

FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN

ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR

TRADEMARK

In Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been

filed in the U.S. District Court on the following

G Trademarks or G Patents. ( G the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.):

DOCKET NO. DATE FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

PATENT OR

TRADEMARK NO.

DATE OF PATENT 

OR TRADEMARK HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

In the above—entitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:

DATE INCLUDED INCLUDED BY

G Amendment G Answer G Cross Bill G Other Pleading

PATENT OR

TRADEMARK NO.

DATE OF PATENT 

OR TRADEMARK HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

In the above—entitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgement issued:

DECISION/JUDGEMENT

CLERK (BY) DEPUTY CLERK DATE

Copy 1—Upon initiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3—Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director

Copy 2—Upon filing document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Case file copy

Western District of Texas

✔

6:20-cv-572 6/29/2020 Western District of Texas

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a BRAZOS

LICENSING AND DEVELOPMENT

GOOGLE LLC

US 8,041,806 10/18/2011 WSOU Investments, LLC

Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 2 Filed 06/29/20 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AS REPORTED ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                      11,233,882
<SECURITIES>                                12,515,900
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,133,498
<PP&E>                                         166,399
<DEPRECIATION>                                  44,944
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,870,626
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,525,762
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,353
<COMMON>                                     1,106,708
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,236,803
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                27,870,626
<SALES>                                        149,454
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               149,454
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,355,909
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             437,892
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,768,563)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,768,563)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (3,768,563)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.04)
        

</TABLE>
Record of Discussion 

## (o :2..

# -r

**2otl.{-AJM~2** t 

### q_-4 

## v Docket No. 

## FAA- ()0 

# 15

**~ ~**  J 

### I Di rectorate Identifier: -AD With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)?

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED 

### DAH Alan Macias 9/14/2014 Concur. 

### DAH Sam Chan 9/14/2014 Concur. 

### DAH John Gross 9/14/2014 Concur.

Other/Additional Information : DO NOT DELETE PAGE BREAK
#### VOGUE CLEANERS, a Corporation, v. J. W. SNYDER et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Sept. 26, 1952.

Otto C. Martin, Earl F. Martin, Hartford, for movant.

John B. Anderson, Owensboro, for opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from the Daviess Circuit Court. Judgment for $337.50 for real estate broker’s commission.

We have considered the record carefully and find no error.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### TEXAS UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION et al. v. GENERAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION et al.

No. A—1871.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Feb. 2, 1949.

Rehearing Denied March 9, 1949.

Price Daniel, Atty. Gen., Robert O. Koch and Chas. P. Atkinson, Asst. Attys. Gen., and Joe K. Wells and C. H. Messer, both of Austin, for petitioners.

Lattimore, Couch & Lattimore, H. S. Lattimore, J. O. Terrell Couch and H. M. Lattimore, all of Fort Worth, for respondents.

BREWSTER, Justice.

General Engineering Corporation et al., respondents, sued Texas Unemployment Compensation Commission et al., petitioners, in their official capacities, to recover unemployment compensation taxes paid under protest. A trial court judgment for respondents was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. 213 S.W.2d 151.

General Engineering Company was a limited partnership doing an engineering and construction business and handling industrial materials and supplies. As the only general partner, one Sprekelmeyer was in exclusive control of its operations and business. Because of a favorable benefit wage ratio, the partnership enjoyed the minimum of 1⁄2 per cent, on its payrolls as its unemployment compensation tax, under the provisions of Art. 5221b — 5, Vernon’s Ann. Civ.St.

On January 9, 1946, General Engineering Corporation and General Industrial Supply Corporation, respondents, were incorporated, the former to take over the engineering business and the latter the supply business of the partnership, General Engineering Co. Both corporations remained under the active control and management of Sprekelmeyer. Each had more than eight employees, and that rendered each liable for unemployment compensation contributions, without regard to the provisions of Sec. 17(f)(4) of Art. 5221b, supra; so the Commission set up a separate account for each of them.

However, the Commission fixed their rate at 2.7 per cent., in spite of their claim that they were entitled to the experience rate of 1⁄2 per cent, formerly enjoyed by General Engineering Co., their predecessor. Respondents paid on the 2.7 per cent, rate .under protest, and brought this suit to recover the difference between what they paid and what they would have paid under the claimed rate of 1⁄2 per cent. The basis of their contention is that since the corporations operated under the unified control of Sprekelmeyer, they should be held to be a single employing unit in successorship to General Engineering Co., under the provi*660sions of subsection (c) (7) of Art. 5221b— 5, supra.

It is obvious that the question thus presented is identical with that this day decided in the State of Texas et al. v. Dallas Liquor Warehouse No. 4 et al., Tex.Sup., 217 S.W.2d 654. For the reasons- there stated, we have concluded that respondents' proposition is not tenable.

Accordingly, both judgments below are reversed and judgment is here rendered for petitioners.

SMEDLEY, Justice.

I dissent from the opinion of the majority for the same reasons as those given in my dissenting opinion in State of Texas et al. v. Dallas Liquor Warehouse No. 4 et al., Tex.Sup., 217 S.W.2d 654.
Exhibit 99.8

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Paramount Energy Trust (the
Trust) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Susan L. Riddell Rose, President and Chief Executive Officer of Paramount
Energy Operating Corp., who performs the same function for the Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Susan L. Riddell Rose                                                
|Susan L. Riddell Rose                                                    
|President and Chief Executive Officer of Paramount Energy Operating Corp.

March 9, 2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                              35,862
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      362,370
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                         38,414
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   509,633
<PP&E>                                           5,414,677
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,794,335
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,714,525
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              673,568
<BONDS>                                            947,606
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           111,402
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,509,504
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,714,525
<SALES>                                          1,732,511
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,197,614
<CGS>                                            1,358,431
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,485,390
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   259,635
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  70,884
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    250,658
<INCOME-TAX>                                        81,568
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                169,090
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       169,090
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         1.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         1.51
        


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Smurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Patrick J. Moore, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   /s/ Patrick  J. Moore    |   |
|--------------------------------------|--------|
|   Patrick J.  Moore        |
|   Chief  Executive Officer |
|   November 7,  2008   |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906,has been provided to Smurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, Inc. and will beretained by Smurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### LIBERTY MUT. INS. CO. v. THRASHER.

No. 11745.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Galveston.

Nov. 13, 1945.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 29, 1945.

Kemper & Cramer, of Houston, for appellant.

Combs & Dixie, of Houston, for appel-lee.

MONTEITH, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal in an action by appel-lee, Earl R. Thrasher, to set aside an *597award of the Industrial Accident Board in favor of appellant, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, as compensation for injuries alleged to have been sustained in the course of his employment with Eastern States Petroleum Company of Texas, who carried compensation insurance with appellant. Judgment was rendered in the trial court awarding appellee and his attorneys compensation in the sum of $6,-767.18, payable in a lump sum.

This cause was set for submission and oral argument in this court on November 8, 1945. No brief was filed by appellant in this court.

On November 6, 1945, two days prior to the date of submission appellee filed his written motion in this court praying that the appeal be dismissed for lack of prosecution under Rules 414 and 415, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. He alleged that the transcript in the case was filed in this court on July 21, 1945; that, by order entered by this court on August 1, 1945, appellant was granted an additional thirty days, until September 30, 1945, within which to file the statement of facts; that the cause was set for submission on November 8, 1945, and that no brief had been filed by appellant. He alleged that it was then too late for him to file a reply brief and that a consideration of appellant’s appeal by this court would cause him material injury.

On November 8, 1945, the date on which the case was set for submission in this court, appellant filed an answer to appel-lee’s motion in which it sought additional time within which to file its brief. Appellant alleged that the transcript in the case had not been available to its counsel and that additional time was necessary in which to show that fundamental error had been committed by the trial court.

Under Rule 414 of the Texas Rules of .Civil Procedure, appellant is required to file his brief within “thirty days after the filing therein of the transcript and statement of facts.”

Rule 415 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provides that, “When the appellant has failed to file his brief in the time prescribed, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless good cause is shown for such failure and that appellee has not suffered material injury thereby. * * * ”

The Clerk of this court gave both parties hereto due notice that the cause had been set for submission and oral argument for Thursday, November 8, 1945. The record fails to disclose that appellant’s delay in filing its brief was caused by the alleged failure of the clerk of this court to return the transcript to appellant.

No good cause having been shown for appellant’s failure to file its brief, the appeal herein is dismissed for want of prosecution, under the rule announced by this court in the recent case of Aldridge v. Clinton Park Development Co., 187 S.W.2d 255, and the authorities there cited.

Appeal dismissed.
Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 15-1 Filed 10/06/20 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

THOMPSON EVERETT, INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

NATIONAL CABLE ADVERTISING, L.P.;

CABLE NETWORKS, INCORPORATED;

No. 96-1346

CABLE MEDIA CORPORATION,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

COX CABLE COMMUNICATIONS,

Party in Interest.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

James R. Spencer, District Judge.

(CA-93-452)

Submitted: April 17, 1997

Decided: May 7, 1997

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Sa'ad El-Amin, Beverly D. Crawford, EL-AMIN & CRAWFORD,

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen A. Northup, Andrew G.

Mauck, MAYS & VALENTINE, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Thompson Everett, Inc. challenges the district court's

order denying its motions objecting to the taxation of costs in favor

of the Appellees for all depositions submitted with a successful

motion for summary judgment. Although the motions contained technical defects, the district court considered them on the merits and

denied relief. Finding no error, we affirm.

Appellant filed an antitrust complaint against three large, national

cable companies. Depositions were taken from fifty-eight witnesses,

most of them noticed by Appellant. After discovery, the Appellees

filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted, and they

were then awarded costs for these depositions. Appellant challenged

the award on the ground that the parties agreed to take the depositions

of more witnesses than allowed by local rule.* The district court,

interpreting its own rule, found no violation and denied Appellant's

motions for relief.

A district court's interpretation of its own rules is entitled to great

deference, and we find no abuse of discretion here. See United States

Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Lawrenson, 334 F.2d 464, 467 (4th Cir. 1964)

(district court is the best judge of its own rules). Only four non-party

witnesses were attributed to the Appellees. Appellant asserts that ten

more should have been attributed to them. Even if this were correct,

there would be no violation of the rule because the Appellees were

entitled to five non-party depositions each for a total of fifteen.

We therefore affirm the order of the district court. We dispense

_________________________________________________________________

*Local Rule 11.1(B) allows each party to only depose five non-party

witnesses unless the court, pursuant to a written motion, permits otherwise.

 2
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3
#### Charlie WHITE, Appellant, v. STATE, Appellee.

No. 25772.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 26, 1952.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

This is a companion case to that of Brown v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 247 S.W.2d 256. Appellant was separately indicted for the theft of the same calf, and on a separate trial was also awarded a two year term in the penitentiary.

Appellant did nbt testify 'ndr offer evidence in his behalf, and there are no bills of exception.

*258The evidence is substantially the same as that in Brown v. State, supra, and the identical question is raised as to the court’s charge.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
Exhibit 31.2

                            ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT

     I, David J. Kolibachuk, being an officer of U.S. Bank Trust National
Association, the Trustee in respect of the Corporate Backed Trust Certificates,
Motorola Debenture-Backed Series 2002-12 Trust (the "Trust"), certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K in respect of the
          Trust and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing
          reports of the Trust filed by Lehman ABS Corporation in respect of
          periods included in the year covered by this annual report of the
          Trust;

     2.   Based on my knowledge, the information in those reports, taken as a
          whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or
          omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
          in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,
          not misleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual
          report;

     3.   Based on my knowledge, the distribution information required to be
          provided to the Depositor or the certificateholders by the Trustee
          under the pooling and servicing or similar agreement for inclusion in
          such distribution reports is included in such reports; and

     4.   I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the Trustee
          under the pooling and servicing or similar agreement and based on my
          knowledge, except as disclosed in such reports, the Trustee has
          fulfilled its obligations under that agreement.



Date: March 21, 2007


      /s/ DAVID J. KOLIBACHUK
-----------------------------------
David J. Kolibachuk, Vice President