Search for: "Spink v. Spink"
Results 1 - 20
of 28
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Dec 2023, 4:00 pm
[1] Dimou v. [read post]
6 Jul 2023, 8:10 am
Spinks, 136 N.C. [read post]
18 Aug 2021, 5:47 am
At trial, the contested issue was whether Spinks did so, ... [read post]
17 Jun 2021, 9:00 am
Spinks, ___ N.C. [read post]
20 May 2021, 10:38 am
Spinks, 2021-NCCOA-218, ___ N.C. [read post]
7 Apr 2020, 7:21 am
Peru and NML v. [read post]
9 Sep 2018, 5:29 am
Spinks. [read post]
8 May 2018, 8:11 am
Spinks, 244 N.C. [read post]
5 Mar 2018, 3:00 am
Spinks, 136 N.C. [read post]
6 Nov 2017, 5:29 am
Spink-Krause v. [read post]
26 Oct 2017, 5:03 am
And while her hostile work environment claim also failed, her Title VII and state-law retaliation claims advanced (Spink-Krause v. [read post]
20 Apr 2017, 9:30 am
"The federal court's March 31 decision in the case of U.S. v. [read post]
22 Aug 2016, 6:00 am
Three Knife-Shaped Coins Et al. and the related case of Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. [read post]
4 Jun 2015, 12:04 pm
In today’s case (Ducharme v. [read post]
12 Aug 2014, 9:55 pm
By Ralph Cox* and Simon Spink** -- Overview For the best part of 10 years, since the judgment of Lord Hoffmann in Kirin-Amgen v Hoescht Marion Roussel[1], it has been widely assumed that there is no file wrapper estoppel in the UK and no doctrine of equivalents either. [read post]
18 Feb 2014, 6:32 am
Spinks, 136 N.C. [read post]
12 Sep 2013, 11:07 am
A letter filed before today's scheduled pre-trial conference in the case of United States of America v. [read post]
17 May 2013, 5:07 am
U.S. v. [read post]
21 Feb 2013, 3:45 pm
He also cited Hallen Co v Brabantia (UK) Ltd [1991] RPC 195 and Dyson Appliances Ltd v Hoover Ltd [2002] RPC 22, both in relation to the relevance of commercial considerations to obviousness. [read post]
13 Sep 2012, 7:49 am
Spink (1996), and Hughes Aircraft Co. v. [read post]
