Search for: "US Industries, Inc. v. Norton Co." Results 1 - 20 of 25
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 May 2023, 6:56 pm
US military leaders have also expressed fears about Beijing's influence on Mexico's communications industry, where 80 percent of telecoms are provided by Chinese companies, according to General Glen VanHerck, commander of both US Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command. [read post]
22 May 2022, 4:08 pm by INFORRM
On the same day, there was a hearing in COS v PER and another before Collins Rice J. [read post]
29 Dec 2021, 12:00 pm by Kevin LaCroix
The US experience, as shown by securities class actions such as Owens Corning v National Union Fire Insurance Co [6], indicates that the construction of exclusions is not a simple issue. [read post]
11 Apr 2017, 3:01 pm
  Comments and suggestions (especially for compiling a useful student friendly reading list) gratefully received as this remains very much a work in progress. [read post]
6 Jun 2013, 12:15 am
The doctrine of inherent anticipation (particularly after Schering Co. v Geneva Pharmaceuticals Inc. et Al., commented here - see also, in the UK, Merrell Dow v H N Norton & Co), may lead to similar distortions. [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 8:46 am by Max Kennerly, Esq.
Coffing Hoist Div., Duff-Norton Co., 528 A.2d 590 (Pa. 1987)(evidence of industry standards are inadmissible in strict products liability actions) Davis v. [read post]
25 Jul 2011, 6:38 am by Rebecca Tushnet
” Unfortunately, it cited one of my least favorite cases, Norton Tire Co. v. [read post]
13 May 2010, 1:40 pm by Fred Goldsmith
Oglebay Norton Marine Services Co., LLC, 2010 WL 1463194 (E.D. [read post]
3 May 2010, 9:30 pm by admin
Smith Distributing Company, Inc. entered into an agreement with the U.S. [read post]
17 Aug 2009, 10:44 am
(Quincy, MA; Michael Foster, President) B&L Industries, Inc. [read post]
17 Jun 2009, 10:46 am
But patent infringement does not require that one should be aware that one is infringing: "whether or not a person is working [an] … invention is an objective fact independent of what he knows or thinks about what he is doing": Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc v H N Norton & Co Ltd [1996] R.P.C. 76 , 90. [read post]
29 Apr 2009, 2:24 am
Coffing Hoist Division, Duff-Norton Co., 528 A.2d 590 (Pa. 1987); Azzarello v. [read post]