Search for: "Williams v. Gibson" Results 181 - 200 of 273
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Aug 2008, 2:43 am
– discussion of Washington Post article on Ismed’s efforts to promote follow-on biologics approval pathway: (Patent Baristas), (Patent Docs), US: Congressional fact-finding on follow-on biologics: (Patent Docs), US: David v Monsanto: Biotechnology patent ‘exhaustion’ after Quanta, Supreme Court petition: (Hal Wegner), US: Ulysses Pharmaceuticals announces issuance of patent for novel class of ant [read post]
21 Aug 2007, 5:11 am by David G. Badertscher
This development follows a recent problematic decision by the 2nd Circuit in AFSCME v. [read post]
15 Nov 2018, 9:01 pm by Vikram David Amar
Before teaching, Professor Amar spent a few years at the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. [read post]
19 Apr 2019, 6:12 am
., on Saturday, April 13, 2019 Tags: Appraisal rights, Boards of Directors, Delaware law, DGCL, Merger litigation, Mergers & acquisitions, Safe harbor, State law Lorenzo v. [read post]
14 Jun 2017, 9:01 pm by Vikram David Amar
As the Supreme Court observed in the context of high school students in Tinker v. [read post]
13 Dec 2018, 9:01 pm by Vikram David Amar
Before teaching, Professor Amar spent a few years at the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. [read post]
27 May 2012, 9:06 am by Paul Maharg
  Actually, the student was only enacting William Gibson’s famous statement that the future is already here, just not evenly distributed. [read post]
27 May 2015, 1:09 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
Following examples from 6 months of NYPL: choreographer used clips of ballets that inspired him; Satrapi used clips from Persepolis; George Clinton used clips of performances that inspired him; William Gibson; magician David Blaine; actor RuPaul; art dealer used clips from documentary about him; Suzanne Farrell used clips about her dances. [read post]
12 May 2019, 9:01 pm by Vikram David Amar
” Critics assert, in particular, that the president seems oblivious to a 1993 Supreme Court ruling, Nixon v. [read post]