Search for: "Express Way Ltd." Results 61 - 80 of 1,924
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Jun 2008, 12:15 pm
Kenneth Chenault, American Express Co., $51.7 million7. [read post]
17 Nov 2010, 11:53 pm
In Guangzhou Dockyards Co Ltd v ENE Aegialii [2010] EWHC 2826 (Comm), Mr Justice Blair dismissed an application which had sought to appeal against an arbitration award on an issue of fact.A dispute arose between Guangzhou Dockyards Co Ltd (GD), a Chinese dockyard owner, and ENE Aegialii (ENE), a shipowner, in relation to a contract pursuant to which GD were to convert ENE's crude oil carrier into an ore carrier. [read post]
17 May 2012, 3:01 am
Virtual reality has evolved from a paradox to a well-understood expression in colloquial English, but that wasn't much comfort for Really Virtual. [read post]
3 Dec 2010, 3:56 am
 ITV Broadcasting Ltd and others v TV Catch Up Ltd  [2010] EWHC 3063 (Ch) was another of last week's Chancery Division decisions for England and Wales with which the IPKat has been struggling to catch up. [read post]
14 Aug 2015, 7:56 am by Matthew Perry, Olswang LLP
He also expressed concern as to whether a declaration of non-liability was in any way time-barred but that, in any event, such difficulties were avoided by the fact that the term suggested by Aspect could be clearly implied, meaning that its claim fell within the limitation period. [read post]
6 Oct 2010, 12:54 am by Matthew Hill
The BBC had made submissions on this point, based on the case of Schering Chemicals Ltd v Falkman Ltd [1982] 1 QB 1. [read post]
13 Nov 2007, 10:33 am
Bashman characterizes this as a split, in some ways it is not, because this really only applies to patent cases. [read post]
24 Oct 2011, 1:35 pm by Matthew Nied
Today, as a result of Crookes and other landmark cases – such as WIC Radio Ltd. v. [read post]
8 Dec 2017, 9:20 am by Stephen Wermiel
Tuesday’s oral argument in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. [read post]
29 Mar 2015, 2:03 am by Mark Summerfield
  In Garford Pty Ltd v DYWIDAG Systems International Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 6, the court confirmed that ‘[a] claim to an apparatus for a particular purpose is a claim to an apparatus that is suitable for that purpose …. [read post]
31 Oct 2017, 2:10 am by Jani Ihalainen
This was in that "…because [the format] could not be acted or performed, being no more than a general scheme for a proposed entertainment", and "…in what way the underlying idea has been distilled out and translated into an expression thereof in a material form sufficiently identifiable to be copied". [read post]