Search for: "State v. Holderness" Results 2061 - 2080 of 8,247
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Aug 2018, 12:29 pm by Jeffrey Kahn
Supreme Court described it in Secretary of State for the Home Department v. [read post]
13 Aug 2018, 3:26 am by Peter Mahler
Almost two years later, the state court granted the option holder’s motion to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice the state court case, following which the plaintiff filed suit in federal court asserting state law claims for judicial dissolution and also to compel defendants to produce books and records. [read post]
8 Aug 2018, 1:51 pm by Adam Feldman
Several patent-related cases, Oil States Energy Services v. [read post]
7 Aug 2018, 1:16 am by Jani Ihalainen
This puzzling question landed on the CJEU's desk late last month, which sets an interesting precedent for future infringement cases.The case of Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Limited v Duma Forklifts NV concerns the sale of Mitsubishi forklifts, for which Mitsubishi's European arm has the exclusive rights to. [read post]
7 Aug 2018, 1:16 am by Jani Ihalainen
This puzzling question landed on the CJEU's desk late last month, which sets an interesting precedent for future infringement cases.The case of Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Limited v Duma Forklifts NV concerns the sale of Mitsubishi forklifts, for which Mitsubishi's European arm has the exclusive rights to. [read post]
2 Aug 2018, 4:53 am by Ben
In am April 2018 filing related to that case, the RIAA argued that the appeals court ruling in BMG v Cox "affirmed the holdings ... that [we] rely on here, and expressly rejected the central arguments [Grande] advance in their motions to dismiss" and accused Grande of “refusing to take meaningful action against repeat infringers”,  users who repeatedly downloaded music illegally over BitTorrent networks.Now Sony, Universal and Warner are also using the BMG… [read post]
31 Jul 2018, 9:20 am by Brett Trout
Still another reason for the drop in the number of patent infringement lawsuits may be the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Octance Fitness v. [read post]
31 Jul 2018, 7:58 am by Thorsten Bausch
In paragraph 43, the CJEU explicitly stated: “Accordingly, having regard to the objectives pursued by Regulation No 469/2009, the claims cannot allow the holder of the basic patent to enjoy, by obtaining an SPC, protection which goes beyond that granted for the invention covered by that patent. [read post]