Search for: "Word v. U. S"
Results 2101 - 2120
of 2,468
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Jul 2010, 1:12 pm
Lupin also relied on the Federal Circuit’s 2004 decision in Arnold Partnership v. [read post]
18 Jul 2010, 4:16 pm
IntroductionToday's Legal theory Lexicon is about the "reasonable person. [read post]
18 Jul 2010, 8:45 am
As the Court said in Sonzinsky v. [read post]
14 Jul 2010, 9:10 am
Richard Epstein is one of the nation’s leading law professors — U. [read post]
12 Jul 2010, 5:07 pm
In Phan v. [read post]
12 Jul 2010, 4:30 am
In fact, there are two that stand out, and both have Posner's fingerprints on them.Most recently, we have the window rot case, Pella Corp v. [read post]
9 Jul 2010, 6:12 am
CAFC: Bilski V. [read post]
5 Jul 2010, 7:59 pm
On March 5, 2010, Plaintiff filed a complaint to compel the U. [read post]
4 Jul 2010, 12:20 pm
" Further section 101's terms were so expansive that it's wording suggests and allows for new tests for new technologies.Business Method PatentsTo undermine the argument that the patentability of business methods should be categorically excluded from Section 101's scope, the Court again examined the statutory wording of the definition of the term 'method'. [read post]
2 Jul 2010, 2:40 am
It contains, among other things, articles on (i) the US Supreme Court’s damages analysis in Lucent v Microsoft from an economist’s perspective which proposes new guidelines for evaluating patent damages in concentrated, high tech industries and (ii) the evolution of quilts from utility items to works of art proposing strong copyright law protection for quilt designs. [read post]
30 Jun 2010, 7:55 pm
United States, 556 U. [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 8:18 pm
” 17 U. [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 2:51 pm
In other words, in the Court’s view, the issue is not that 10(b) can’t apply to foreign fraud — it’s that Section 10(b) can’t apply to any fraud at all (foreign or domestic) in connection with a foreign transaction. [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 2:37 pm
C., 547 U. [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 11:37 am
In the closely-watched case of Bilski v. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 2:49 pm
S. 175, 182, and, "[u]nless otherwise defined, 'words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning,' " ibid. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 11:49 am
Flook, 437 U. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 11:27 am
” citing Gottschalk v. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 9:38 am
” Humphrey’s Executor v. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 8:30 am
I predict these stirring words will often be quoted from Roberts's opinion: One can have a government that functions without being ruled by functionaries, and a government that benefits from expertise without being ruled by experts. [read post]
