Outsourcing the Jury: Bartlett v. DuPont and the Role of Alternative Adjudication in Preserving Jury "Fairness" in Complex Scientific Litigation

Commenting on Bartlett v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., No. 2:13-CV-0170 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 8, 2015); In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. C-8 Personal Injury Litigation, No. 2:13-MD-2433 (S.D. Ohio filed Apr. 9, 2013)

Colors For Wool Yarn

Colors for Wool Yarn is a manual used by the Du Pont Company to mix dyes for wool yarn. This book contains comprehensive information regarding the range of du Pont dyes suitable for application on wool in all stages of manufacture. Dyeings of both acid and chrome colors are shown on wool yarn. In addition, general dyeing instructions have been incorporated as well as a tabulation embracing most of the working and fastness properties. The following pages also contain specific information on the dyeing properties of the individual colors --Introduction, page 3.https://digitalcommons.winthrop.edu/rarebooks/1159/thumbnail.jp

H88-0024.10. Cupery, Martin E. Papers, 1941-1981. 0.25 linear ft.

Hope College graduate (1924); Chemist at E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company; chair of the Science Chapter of the Hope College Alumni Association, 1962-1966. Collection includes correspondence, memorials for other Hope College professors, patents, photographs, and speeches which relate to fund raising efforts for a new science building, the Science Fund Campaign, and chemistry

Valspar Corp v. E I Du Pont De Nemours & Co

USDC for the District of Delawar

Constitutional Law - Governmental Immunity - Immunity of Agent of Federal Government to State Taxation

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company contracted with the Atomic Energy Commission to construct and operate the Savannah River Project for development of the hydrogen bomb for a fee of one dollar. Under the contract du Pont was to purchase all materials and supplies with funds furnished by the United States, title to vest in the government immediately when it passed from the vendor. South Carolina attempted to apply its sales and use taxes to these purchases. In an action by the United States and du Pont before a statutory three-judge district court to enjoin collection of these taxes, held, injunction granted, one judge dissenting. The purchases by du Pont are exempt from state taxation because du Pont was acting as an agent of the federal government. United States v. Livingston, 179 F. Supp. 9 (E.D. S.C. 1959)

Data production methods for harmonized patent statistics : patentee name harmonization.

Patent documents are one of the most comprehensive data sources on technology development. As such, they provide a unique source of information to analyze and monitor technological performance. Patent indicators are now used by companies and by policy and government agencies alike to assess technological progress on the level of regions, countries, domains, and even specific entities such as companies, universities and individual inventors. In this paper, we develop a comprehensive method to achieve harmonization of patentee names in an automated way so that analysis at the level of patentees can be facilitated. The method has been applied to an extensive set of all patentee names found for all EPO patent applications published between 1978 and 2004 and all granted USPTO patents published between 1991 and 2003. As completeness (the extent to which the name-harmonization procedure is able to capture all name variants of the same patentee ) and accuracy (the extent to which the name-harmonization procedure correctly allocates name variants to a single, harmonized patentee name ) do not go hand in hand, priority has been given to accuracy. Before discussing in detail the methodology and its effects as applied to the EPO and USPTO patentee name list, we will first clarify the difference between patentee name harmonization and legal entity identification. In addition, we will briefly expand on the methods and approaches previously developed to address the issue of patentee name harmonization, in order to shed light on our specific contribution. Finally, future refinements and extensions are discussed.Agency; Applications; EPO; USPTO; Name harmonization; Information;

Mundy Motor Lines v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia at Richmondhttps://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/va-supreme-court-records-vol199/1104/thumbnail.jp