Search for: "Ainsworth v. State"
Results 1 - 20
of 98
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Apr 2024, 10:08 am
In December 1996, Judge Jones issued his decision that excluded the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses’ proposed testimony on grounds that it failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 702.[5] In October 1996, while Judge Jones was studying the record, and writing his opinion in the Hall case, Judge Weinstein, with a judge from the Southern District of New York, and another from New York state trial court, conducted a two-week Rule 702 hearing, in Brooklyn. [read post]
31 Dec 2023, 10:44 am
For example, Ainsworth v. [read post]
21 Apr 2023, 2:55 am
See Nico Constantijn Antonius Samara v Stive Jean-Paul Dan [2021] HKCFI 1078[41]; Yan Yu Ying v Leung Wing Hei [2021] HKCFI 3160 and Huobi Asia Limited & Anor v Chen Boliang & Anor [2020] HKCFI 2750. [read post]
5 Dec 2022, 11:39 am
Application of the Moçambique principle follows the Supreme Court decision in Lucasfilm v Ainsworth ([2011] UKSC 39) and its application in Chugai v UCB ([2017] EWHC 1216 (Pat)). [read post]
14 Oct 2022, 6:00 am
Blocking measures have expanded to 39 countries in recent years, with the United States remaining the key absentee. [read post]
1 Aug 2022, 2:00 am
Kaitlin Ainsworth Caruso (University of Maine), Abortion Localism and Preemption in a Post-Roe Era, SSRN (2022): In Dobbs v. [read post]
9 Feb 2021, 8:46 am
Ainsworth v. [read post]
9 Feb 2021, 8:46 am
Ainsworth v. [read post]
25 Jan 2021, 9:36 am
State v. [read post]
18 Sep 2020, 1:10 am
Facebook Inc applied to set aside the orders for its service in the United States, among other things. [read post]
22 Jul 2020, 4:25 am
This decision highlights the importance of considering all forms of intellectual property rights when looking to protect a product, although it remains to be seen whether the UK Court will adopt a similar approach, as cases such as Lucasfilm v Ainsworth, demonstrate their reluctance to protect such utilitarian products through copyright. [read post]
4 Oct 2019, 8:50 am
Criminal procedure — Double jeopardy — Mistrial on defense motion The State charged Ainsworth McLeod, the appellant, with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and with conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute. [read post]
4 Mar 2019, 7:59 am
The event blurb reads:"Jurisdictional issues have increasingly come to the fore in IP disputes in recent years, from Lucasfilm v Ainsworth and Actavis v Eli Lilly to FRAND disputes such as Unwired Planet v Huawei, Apple v Qualcommand Conversant v Huawei & ZTE, as parties clash on forum-shopping and attempts to reach one-stop resolution of their IP disputes. [read post]
17 Jan 2019, 11:09 pm
No - regardless of how it's displayedThe second was Lucasfilm Ltd & Ors v Ainsworth & Anor [2011] UKSC 39 (the "Star Wars case" covered on the IPKat here) concerned the question of whether a stormtroopers' helmet met the definition of a sculpture under the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988. [read post]
20 Nov 2018, 9:01 pm
As the US Supreme Court recognized in Miranda v. [read post]
5 Jul 2018, 4:00 am
Ainsworth, 22 Barb. 118 (1856). [read post]
1 Jun 2018, 11:15 am
The lawsuit, Almerico et al. v. [read post]
5 Apr 2018, 7:55 pm
Unifund,[5] and the same is true of other states. [read post]
18 Dec 2017, 1:42 pm
Also it is important to point out that Star Wars, or more specifically a storm trooper helmet, was the key point of contention in the regularly cited case of Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth (2011). [read post]
16 Aug 2017, 5:45 am
– Dallas 2014, no pet) Houston 14th Court: Ainsworth v. [read post]
