The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title III
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH; COMMISSIONS

Chapter 11
LEGISLATIVE ORGANIZATION, PROCEDURES, AND STAFFING

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 11.26

11.26 Legislative employees; employment restrictions.—No employee of the Legislature shall:

(1) Subject to the provisions of s. 11.0431, reveal to any person outside the area of the employee’s direct responsibility the contents or nature of any request for services made by any member of the Legislature, except with the consent of the member making such request.

(2) Give legal advice on any subject to any person, firm, or corporation, except members or staff of the Legislature.

(3) No full-time legislative employee shall be otherwise employed, except with the written permission of the presiding officer of the house by which he or she is employed. Employees of joint committees must have the permission of the presiding officers of both houses.

History.—s. 11, ch. 25369, 1949; s. 19, ch. 68-35; s. 26, ch. 69-52; s. 1, ch. 75-208; s. 2, ch. 93-405; s. 15, ch. 95-147; s. 19, ch. 96-318.

F.S. 11.26 on Google Scholar

F.S. 11.26 on Casetext

Amendments to 11.26

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 11.26

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 11.26.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

IN RE M. DUGGAN, J. v. B. J., 571 B.R. 1 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2017)

. . . No, 45 at ¶ 11.26. . . .

COCONUT GROVE PADS, INC. v. MICH MICH TGR, INC. TGR, v., 222 F. Supp. 3d 222 (E.D.N.Y. 2016)

. . . claim 1, wherein each of said prongs of a respective said end portion is curved.” ’766 Patent col.5 11.26 . . .

IN RE BODY SCIENCE LLC PATENT LITIGATION, 167 F. Supp. 3d 152 (D. Mass. 2016)

. . . (See, e.g., ’238 Patent coll.l 11.18-19; ’991 Patent coll.l 11.26-27). . . . sleeping infant’s cardiac and respiratory functions. (’238 Patent coll.1 11.18-32; ’991 Patent coll.l 11.26 . . .

USA NUTRACEUTICALS GROUP, INC. d b a v. BPI SPORTS, LLC BPI LLC,, 165 F. Supp. 3d 1256 (S.D. Fla. 2016)

. . . , 408 F.Supp.2d 1237, 1244 (S.D.Fla.2005) (citing 2 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 11.26 . . .

CIOFFI, v. GOOGLE, INC., 632 F. App'x 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2015)

. . . exchanging data with the network interface and with the first web browser process.” '528 patent col. 21 11.26 . . .

HITACHI MAXELL, LTD. v. TOP VICTORY ELECTRONICS TAIWAN CO. LTD. TPV l USA Co. TPV Co. TPV TPV Co., 143 F. Supp. 3d 485 (E.D. Tex. 2015)

. . . Plaintiff cites the following intrinsic evidence to support its position: ‘412 Patent col.2 11.9-37, col.6 11.26 . . . Id. at col.6 11.26-29 (in yellow in the annotated Figure 1), col.16 11.57-60, col.20 11.51— 54, col.23 . . . . comprising luminance signals and two color difference signals.” ‘412 Patent col.3 11.45-54, col.6 11.26 . . .

CRG NETWORK, v. BARLAND, C., 139 F. Supp. 3d 950 (E.D. Wis. 2015)

. . . Stat. §§ 11.26(2)(c), (l)(e). The law also imposes aggregate limits on contributions. . . . subject to a filing requirement, including political party and legislative campaign committees,” § 11.26 . . . This is so because § 11.26(9) is over-inclusive and under-inclusive. . . . The contribution limits in Section 11.26(9), Wis. . . . See §§ 11.26(1), (2). . . . .

SMILOVITS, v. FIRST SOLAR INCORPORATED,, 119 F. Supp. 3d 978 (D. Ariz. 2015)

. . . The stock price dropped 11.26% that day and 5.8% the next. Id. at 75. II. Legal Standard. . . . First Solar’s stock fell by $4.10 per share, or 11.26%, on February 29. Id., ¶ 74. . . .

B. B. CRAIG, v. J. LEW, U. S., 109 F. Supp. 3d 268 (D.D.C. 2015)

. . . . ¶ 11.26; Craig Deck ¶ 34; Compl. ¶ 49. Mr. Craig characterizes Mr. . . . See PL’s SGI ¶ 11.26; Craig Decl. ¶ 34; Compl. ¶ 49. Mr. . . .

ASTRAZENECA LP AB, v. BREATH LIMITED, LP AB, v. LP AB, v. LP AB, v., 88 F. Supp. 3d 326 (D.N.J. 2015)

. . . DTX 971 at col.6 11.26-62. . . . DTX 2097 at col.6 11.26-38. . . .

DDR HOLDINGS, LLC, v. HOTELS. COM, L. P. L. P. LLC, LLC,, 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)

. . . merchant’s web page even when they were actually viewing goods from a third-party vendor, id. col.2 11.26 . . .

CRG NETWORK, v. BARLAND, C., 48 F. Supp. 3d 1191 (E.D. Wis. 2014)

. . . . § 11.26(9)(b), discussed more fully below. . . . (2)(c), as is an individual, § 11.26(l)(c). . . . Subsection 11.26(9) imposes additional limits on donations. . . . Section 11.26(9) will be enjoined in its entirety. . . . Stat. § 11.26(9). . § 11.26(9)(a) is identical in all material respects, with the differences emphasized . . .

WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE, INC. v. BARLAND,, 751 F.3d 804 (7th Cir. 2014)

. . . here, we addressed a single claim by the Wisconsin Right to Life State PAC: a challenge to section 11.26 . . . Earlier in this case we addressed one of them — section 11.26(4), the $10,000 aggregate annual cap on . . . court and sought relief from the stay for the limited purpose of litigating its challenge to section 11.26 . . . and 11.16 (permitting only a registered treasurer to receive contributions or make disbursements); § 11.26 . . .

McCUTCHEON, v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION., 134 S. Ct. 1434 (U.S. 2014)

. . . . § 11.26(4) (2007-2008); Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 22-25-102(c)(ii) (2013). . . .

McCUTCHEON, v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION., 572 U.S. 185 (U.S. 2014)

. . . . § 11.26(4) (2007-2008); Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 22-25-102(c)(ii) (2013). . . .

INTEX RECREATION CORPORATION, v. TEAM WORLDWIDE CORPORATION,, 42 F. Supp. 3d 80 (D.D.C. 2013)

. . . See ’469 Patent, col.6 11.26-65 (describing how fans are received in chambers, and need not be removed . . .

v., 140 T.C. 294 (T.C. 2013)

. . . 650,000 1.09 47,480 13.69 M54 Industrial development; outdoor storage 3 May 02 681,507 1.39 60,548 11.26 . . .

J. LAMSON, v. UNITED STATES,, 110 Fed. Cl. 691 (Fed. Cl. 2013)

. . . See, e.g., id. col.2 11.26-65. . . . Id. col.24 11.26-27. . . .

SYNCRUDE CANADA LTD. v. HIGHLAND CONSULTING GROUP, INC., 916 F. Supp. 2d 620 (D. Md. 2013)

. . . Rule 11.26(1) of the Alberta Rules of Court with respect to service outside of Alberta dictates: Unless . . . Alberta Reg. 124/2010, Alberta Rules of Court § 11.26 (emphasis added). . . .

C. W. ZUMBIEL COMPANY, INC. v. J. KAPPOS,, 702 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

. . . Id. col. 3 11.26-31. . . . Id. col. 3 11.26-31. . . .

APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD. LLC,, 695 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

. . . of information located by the plurality of heuristic modules on a display device. '604 patent col.8 11.26 . . .

SANDISK CORPORATION, v. KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY CO. INC., 695 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

. . . Id. at col.8 11.26-40. . . .

In APPLIED MATERIALS, INC., 692 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

. . . substrate must be periodically planarized, i.e. flattened. '855 Patent col.l 11.14-30; '847 Patent col.l 11.26 . . .

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,, 685 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

. . . voltages or could be tripped by either circuit breaker action or fuse operation. '985 patent, col.2 11.26 . . .

In SUONG- HYU HYON, 679 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

. . . Id. at col.2 11.26-37. . . .

ZAPMEDIA SERVICES, INC. v. APPLE, INC., 482 F. App'x 533 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

. . . created and associated with the user’s login account and password in the portal. '414 patent col.10 11.26 . . . E.g., '414 patent col.10 11.26 — 31 (“[A] user ... is issued a user-specific password,” and “a virtual . . .

PFIZER INC. v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. v. v. v., 855 F. Supp. 2d 286 (D.N.J. 2012)

. . . phenylpropanamine; and prodrug forms and pharmacologically acceptable salts thereof. '162 patent, col.6, 11.26 . . .

NOAH SYSTEMS, INC. v. INTUIT INC., 675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

. . . computer, a financial transaction computer, a communications means, and an access means. '435 patent col.2 11.26 . . . Id. at col.3 11.26-30; col.4 11.32-35. . . . Id. at eol.3 11.26-32. . . .

MARINE POLYMER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. HEMCON, INC., 672 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

. . . reactivity on each disclosed bio-compatibility test, id. col.45 ll.45-50, col.46 ll.10-11 and 66-67, col.49 11.26 . . .

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,, 670 F.3d 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

. . . voltages or could be tripped by either circuit breaker action or fuse operation. '985 patent, col.2 11.26 . . .

WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE STATE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, v. BARLAND,, 664 F.3d 139 (7th Cir. 2011)

. . . . § 11.26(4). . . . Stat. § 11.26(4). . . . Stat. § 11.26(4). . . . But the challenge to section 11.26(4) does not. . . . Stat. § 11.26(4). . . .

S. POWELL, v. HOME DEPOT U. S. A. INC., 663 F.3d 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

. . . See '039 patent col.7 11.32-33, col.8 11.26-27 (“said cutting box interior in fluid communication with . . . See '039 patent col.7 11.32-33, col.8 11.26-27. . . .

FUJITSU LIMITED, v. TELLABS OPERATIONS, INC. v. v., 821 F. Supp. 2d 1009 (N.D. Ill. 2011)

. . . wavelength into a wavelength that is suitable for use by attached client equipment. '138 Patent, col.2 11.26 . . .

RETRACTABLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. J. v. BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY,, 653 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

. . . to recognize a retractable syringe that “can be molded as one piece outer body.” '733 patent, col.2 11.26 . . .

INVENTIO AG, v. THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR AMERICAS CORPORATION,, 649 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

. . . col.7 1.25, as well as the interaction between the computing unit and modernizing device, id. eol.7 11.26 . . .

MEMS TECHNOLOGY BERHAD, v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, LLC,, 447 F. App'x 142 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

. . . Id. col.5 11.26-38 (emphases added). . . .

In CHECKING ACCOUNT OVERDRAFT LITIGATION. To v. N. A. S. D. No. JLK v. N. A. S. D. No. JLK, N. D. No., 275 F.R.D. 654 (S.D. Fla. 2011)

. . . Court’s task is to evaluate whether the Settlement is within the “range of reasonableness.” 4 Newberg § 11.26 . . .

BILLUPS- ROTHENBERG, INC. v. ASSOCIATED REGIONAL AND UNIVERSITY PATHOLOGISTS, INC. ARUP, 642 F.3d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

. . . Id. col.23 11.26-33. . . .

LEXION MEDICAL, LLC, v. NORTHGATE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 641 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

. . . See '474 patent col.9 11.26-31 (“Thus, the gas that is now heated, humidified and filtered ... . . .

MIRROR WORLDS, LLC, v. APPLE, INC., 784 F. Supp. 2d 703 (E.D. Tex. 2011)

. . . This resulted in a royalty of $11.26 or 8.81% of the $129 operating system upgrade. . . . Bratic then applied the $11.26 royalty to the price of a Mac computer (approximately $1200), to arrive . . .

FUJITSU LIMITED, v. TELLABS OPERATIONS, INC. v. v., 782 F. Supp. 2d 635 (N.D. Ill. 2011)

. . . a similar “controlling means” claim element. (006 Patent, col. 7 11.37-44; col. 8 11.40-48; col. 9 11.26 . . .

INNOVENTION TOYS, LLC, v. MGA ENTERTAINMENT, INC. R Us,, 637 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

. . . Id. col.3 11.26-30; col.9 11.13-17. . . .

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, v. CROMER FOOD SERVICES, INCORPORATED, v., 414 F. App'x 602 (4th Cir. 2011)

. . . Because overtime was mandatory, the effective pay rate was $11.26 per hour. . . . According to the EEOC, Howard was paid $11.26 per hour for the new shift but $12.50 per hour for his . . .

LAZARE KAPLAN INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. PHOTOSCRIBE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 628 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . Id. col.17 11.26-28. . . .

SPANSION, INC. LLC, ATI ULC, N. Y. v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,, 629 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . that are connected between elements using a conventional wire bonding process. '326 patent col. 29 11.26 . . .

INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC. ITG ITG v. LIQUIDNET HOLDINGS, INC. v., 759 F. Supp. 2d 387 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)

. . . Id. col. 11 11.26-27 (emphasis added). . . .

AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC., 629 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . DNS system so the name is resolved to one of the ghosts that is near the client.” '703 patent col.9 11.26 . . .

ERBE ELEKTROMEDIZIN GMBH ERBE USA, v. CANADY TECHNOLOGY LLC, Dr., 629 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . Id. col.6 11.26-31. . . .

SHIELDALLOY METALLURGICAL CORPORATION, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION,, 743 F. Supp. 2d 429 (D.N.J. 2010)

. . . The State of New Jersey, on behalf of NJ DEP, filed a proof of claim, totaling $11.26 million, “for all . . .

COMPUTER CACHE COHERENCY CORPORATION, v. INTEL CORPORATION, v. USA, 395 F. App'x 696 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . Id. col.2 11.26-35, col.12 11.16-24. . . .

SPINE SOLUTIONS, INC. L. P. v. MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR DANEK USA, INC., 620 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . and a bottom plate, with the bottom plate having a “joint piece” embedded by force. '477 patent col.2 11.26 . . .

WHITE III, v. LOOMIS ARMORED US, INC., 729 F. Supp. 2d 897 (E.D. Mich. 2010)

. . . discharge from the defendant, White became employed by Trinity, Inc. working as a bus driver earning $11.26 . . .

WALLACE v. S. McGLOTHAN,, 606 F.3d 410 (7th Cir. 2010)

. . . Civil Pattern Jury Instruction 11.26, cmt. . . .

OPTIUM CORPORATION, v. EMCORE CORPORATION,, 603 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . See 'All patent col.2 11.26-36. . . .

HEARING COMPONENTS, INC. v. SHURE INC., 600 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . to said connecting portion, and a flange portion secured to said proximal end. '151 patent col. 14 11.26 . . .

APPLERA CORPORATION- APPLIED BIOSYSTEMS GROUP, v. ILLUMINA, INC. C., 375 F. App'x 12 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. . . 1.11 (describing schemes for extending an initializing nucleotide or an extended duplex); id. col.16 11.26 . . .

EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES LLC v. COOK INCORPORATED, W. L., 582 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

. . . X-ray detectibility of wires); id. at col.3 1.51-col.4 1.3 (describing ends of wires); id. at col.5 11.26 . . .

AMGEN INC. v. F. HOFFMANN- LA ROCHE LTD, GMBH, LA, 580 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

. . . product according to claim 7 wherein the nonhuman mammalian cell is a CHO cell. '933 patent col.38 11.26 . . . wherein said erythropoietin is purified from mammalian cells grown in culture”); '933 patent col.38 11.26 . . . according to claim 7 and a pharmaceutically acceptable diluent, adjuvant or carrier. '933 patent col.38 11.26 . . . limitation in claim 3 of the '933 patent is "product of the expression in a mammalian host cell,” col.38 11.26 . . . bone marrow cells to increase production of reticulocytes and red blood cells.” '933 patent col.38 11.26 . . .

EPISTAR CORPORATION, v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, LLC,, 566 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

. . . Id., col.2 11.26-30. A. . . .

REVOLUTION EYEWEAR, INC. v. ASPEX EYEWEAR, INC. Co., 563 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

. . . disengaged from the frames when the users conducted jogging or jumping exercises. '545 patent col.l 11.26 . . .

AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC., 614 F. Supp. 2d 90 (D. Mass. 2009)

. . . (See '598 patent col.8 11.26-35; '703 patent col.8 11.4-12; PX1009, 9-10.) . . .

BAEZ, v. STATE, 9 So. 3d 705 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . points to his scoresheet total and changed the high end of his sentencing range from 135.12 months (11.26 . . . He maintains that because the high end should have been 11.26 years, the thirteen-year sentences that . . .

CORDIS CORPORATION, v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, 561 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

. . . wherein each link is axially displaced from any cir-cumferentially adjacent link. '406 patent col.5 11.26 . . .

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC. v. CORDIS CORPORATION, 554 F.3d 982 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

. . . Id. at col.9 11.26-33. Wolff also discloses that the topcoat is non-thrombogenic. . . .

WELKER BEARING COMPANY, v. PHD, INCORPORATED,, 550 F.3d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

. . . .”); id. at col.6 11.26-27 (“A motion converter 84 converts the rotational movement of the central post . . .

NETCRAFT CORPORATION, v. EBAY, INC., 549 F.3d 1394 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

. . . creates access to the Internet for the customer through the provider’s equipment.” '739 Patent col.2 11.26 . . .

DJS PROPERTIES, L. P. v. J. SIMPLOT,, 397 B.R. 493 (D. Idaho 2008)

. . . Bernstein, Bankruptcy in Practice § 11.26 (4th ed.2007) ("The trustee will just naturally defer the decision . . .

PRAXAIR, INC. v. ATMI, INC., 543 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

. . . difference between the interior and exterior of the bellows expands the bellows. '895 patent col.4 11.26 . . .

PAPYRUS TECHNOLOGY CORP. v. NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE, INC., 581 F. Supp. 2d 502 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)

. . . number, said execution sequence number being assigned by said application program. '002 Patent col.33 11.26 . . .

In J. SWANSON E., 540 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

. . . Id. eol.18 11.26— 30. . . .

ADEPT, INC. v. MUREX SECURITIES, LTD., 539 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

. . . Id. at col.51 11.26-42. . . .

AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. v. BIOLITEC, INC., 569 F. Supp. 2d 313 (D. Mass. 2008)

. . . laser with a 532 nm wavelength versus a prior art laser with a 1064 nm wavelength. '764 patent col. 15, 11.26 . . .

LUMA CORPORATION, v. STRYKER CORPORATION,, 273 F. App'x 948 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

. . . receive a save command and in response thereto to save in said memory a frozen image. '801 patent col.50 11.26 . . .

In FARMLAND INDUSTRIES, INC. n k a FLI, J. P. FI v. d b a PCS PCS USA, 548 F. Supp. 2d 1326 (M.D. Fla. 2008)

. . . the acid is diluted with water to around 18% P205. '391 Patent col.8 11.37-45; see also id. col.10 11.26 . . .

HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC. v. M- I LLC M- I L. L. C., 514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

. . . required to convert prior art fluids from a gel-like state into a flowable state. '832 patent eol.2 11.26 . . . when circulation of the fluid is stopped, as for example when drilling is stopped. '832 patent col.2 11.26 . . .

LABORATOIRES PEROUSE, S. A. S. v. W. L. GORE ASSOCIATES, INC., 528 F. Supp. 2d 362 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)

. . . Ex. 16, col.8 11.26-27; Ex. 17, col.4 11.24-30.); see also V-Formation, Inc. v. . . .

KERNS, v. PRO- FOAM OF SOUTH ALABAMA, INC., 572 F. Supp. 2d 1303 (S.D. Ala. 2007)

. . . This notion is further reinforced in the Alabama Pattern Jury Instructions — Civil (2nd ed.), § 11.26 . . .

POLYVISION CORPORATION, v. SMART TECHNOLOGIES INC. v., 501 F. Supp. 2d 1042 (W.D. Mich. 2007)

. . . that the “substrate spacer 16 may be formed of polystyrene or polyurethane foam, or glass,” (Col. 3, 11.26 . . .

ORTHOARM, INC. v. FORESTADENT USA, INC., 502 F. Supp. 2d 968 (E.D. Mo. 2007)

. . . embodiments, the locking shutter is depicted as a “closure member” or “shutter” (item 132) (Col.12, 11.26 . . .

ACUMED LLC, v. STRYKER CORPORATION,, 483 F.3d 800 (Fed. Cir. 2007)

. . . nail of claim 1 having a profile that substantially passes within its own envelope.” '444 patent col.6 11.26 . . .

ETHOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. REALNETWORKS, INC., 462 F. Supp. 2d 131 (D. Mass. 2006)

. . . See '892 patent fig.l & col.5 II.18-20; '709 patent fig.l & col.5 11.26-27. . . .

PALMTOP PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. LO- Q PLC,, 450 F. Supp. 2d 1344 (N.D. Ga. 2006)

. . . one personal communication device (PCD), each PCD associated with at least one patron .... ” (col.27, 11.26 . . .

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. HONEYWELL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES, INC. v. ITT INDUSTRIES, INC. ITT AUTOMOTIVE, INC. TG TG USA A., 452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006)

. . . Id,., col.l 11.26-30. . . .

SKYLINE SOFTWARE SYSTEMS, INC. v. KEYHOLE, INC., 421 F. Supp. 2d 371 (D. Mass. 2006)

. . . (col.ll, 11.26-27) (Transcript, pp. 24, 27, 31-33) It is clear from Claims 1 and 2 that in describing . . . (col.ll, 11.26-27) But, in both embodiments of the method, it is clear that the renderer at least performs . . .

In LABRANCHE SECURITIES LITIGATION, 405 F. Supp. 2d 333 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)

. . . That day, La-Branche & Co. common stock closed at $11.26 per share. . . .

TANCOGNE v. TOMJAI ENTERPRISES CORPORATION, G P, 408 F. Supp. 2d 1237 (S.D. Fla. 2005)

. . . a composite mark may result in a suggestive term. 2 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 11.26 . . .

KRAJEWSKI, v. ENDERES TOOL COMPANY, INC. a Co. a, 396 F. Supp. 2d 1045 (D. Neb. 2005)

. . . NJI2d Civ. 11.26 (2004 Ed.). See also Hancock v. . . .

MANSOUR, v. ASHCROFT, v., 390 F.3d 667 (9th Cir. 2004)

. . . International Affairs, “Guidelines for Children’s Asylum Claims” [hereinafter “Weiss Memorandum”] 120/11.26 . . .

MARS, INC. v. H. J. HEINZ COMPANY, L. P., 377 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004)

. . . still more preferably less than 8 wt %, and most preferably less than 6 wt %. '764 patent, col. 5, 11.26 . . .

KEMIN FOODS, L. C. v. PIGMENTOS VEGETALES DEL CENTRO S. A. DE C. V., 240 F. Supp. 2d 963 (S.D. Iowa 2003)

. . . PVDC points to the specification for the ’714 patent (Col.3, 11.26-29) which reads that “[l]utein, in . . .

WISCONSIN REALTORS ASSOCIATION, PAC, WEAC- PAC, WMC L. A. v. V. PONTO, D. J. P. C. J. C. G., 233 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (W.D. Wis. 2002)

. . . . §§ 11.05; 11.06; 11.26 and 11.38. . . .

In NBTY, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, 224 F. Supp. 2d 482 (E.D.N.Y. 2002)

. . . Owen, the Director, sold 5,000 of his 44,400 shares or 11.26% of his shares; Nathan Rosenblatt, a member . . .

In SMITH GARDNER, SECURITIES LITIGATION, 214 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (S.D. Fla. 2002)

. . . Defendant Hegna sold 50,000 shares, representing 11.26% of his total holdings. . . . Gardner and Smith each sold approximately 4.44% of their total holdings, while Defendant Hegna sold 11.26% . . .

ROSENBLUTH INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. TRAVEL ANALYTICS, INC., 157 F. Supp. 2d 833 (N.D. Ohio 2001)

. . . (Col.l, 11.26-38). . . .

UNITED STATES v. P. SALEMME, v., 91 F. Supp. 2d 141 (D. Mass. 1999)

. . . . § 11.26. . . . As discussed, in § 11.26, infra, he would in 1986 again use Connolly as a conduit to alert Flemmi to . . . Jordan and Stanley Moody targeted Flemmi as part of the Bahorian investigation. § 11.26, supra. . . . Robert Jordan and Stanley Moody truly targeted Flemmi as part of the Bahorian investigation. § 11.26. . . . As described in § 11.26, infra, the Non-Traditional Organized Crime squad did continue an investigation . . .

ROYAL SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, v. SOFAMOR DANEK GROUP, INC., 190 F.R.D. 463 (W.D. Tenn. 1999)

. . . S01414-S01419 S01414 (11.26-27) not discoverable. Remainder is discoverable. AC 4.23. . . .

CASH, v. CONN APPLIANCES, INC., 2 F. Supp. 2d 884 (E.D. Tex. 1997)

. . . Administrative Law and Practice § 11.26 (2d ed.1997). . . . See 3 Koch, supra § 11.26; cf. Rucker v. Wabash R.R., 418 F.2d 146, 149-50 (7th Cir.1969). . . . See 3 Koch, supra § 11.26. . . . Cir.), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1145, 115 S.Ct. 2583, 132 L.Ed.2d 832 (1995); see also 3 Koch, supra § 11.26 . . . In re Locklin, 101 F.3d 435, 439 (5th Cir.1996); see also 3 Koch, supra § 11.26. .In contrast to Administrator . . .

W. BAKER v. COXE,, 940 F. Supp. 409 (D. Mass. 1996)

. . . . § 11.26(7)(b)(3). . . . See 301 C.M.R. § 11.26; 301 C.M.R. 11.03(6). . . .

BARCIA, v. SITKIN, MUNICIPAL LABOR COMMITTEE, v. SITKIN,, 865 F. Supp. 1015 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)

. . . in the first nine months of 1992 (9.29%) was lower than that for employers during the same period (11.26% . . . period of time, the success rate for employers appealing hearing decisions has gone from 20.15% to 11.26% . . .

FISONS HORTICULTURE, INC. No. v. VIGORO INDUSTRIES, INC. No., 30 F.3d 466 (3d Cir. 1994)

. . . word is automatically "weak" as a trademark as the 'Common Word' fallacy. 1 McCarthy on Trademarks § 11.26 . . .