Search for: "Time, Inc. v. TIME INC."
Results 201 - 220
of 40,155
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Mar 2008, 6:00 am
Last Friday, March 21, 2008, the Supreme Court gave itself an extension of time, through April 28, 2008, to grant or deny review in Bell v. [read post]
1 Aug 2022, 8:19 am
Justice Gorsuch, in a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Sotomayor, expressed strong disagreement with the majority’s interpretation of Section 315(b) as “another step down the road of ceding core judicial powers to agency officials and leaving the disposition of private rights and liberties to bureaucratic mercy” (Thryv, Inc. v. [read post]
12 Jun 2019, 12:36 pm
In what might be a significant decision, Noel v. [read post]
7 Apr 2020, 6:20 am
Relevant to the times in which we find ourselves, the Delaware Court of Chancery, in a newly released transcript ruling in K-Bar Holdings LLC v. [read post]
14 May 2010, 5:41 am
The attorneys in the case of Bachmann v. [read post]
2 Nov 2012, 11:23 am
In Alonzo, a federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of our client MAXIMUS, Inc. on the plaintiffs’ time rounding claims. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 12:34 am
(See Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Nov 2018, 2:16 pm
While using license keys to control software was well-known at the time of the patent's earliest priority date (1998), the patent purports to do so in a rather unusual fashion (for that time).... [read post]
14 Mar 2018, 4:00 am
Supreme Court granted cert. in China Agritech, Inc. v. [read post]
17 Jul 2009, 8:21 am
In Sun-Times Media Group, Inc. v. [read post]
28 May 2019, 4:07 am
In addition, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying ACT’s request for a permanent injunction because ACT failed to establish that it would sustain irreparable harm (ACT 898 Products, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Dec 2023, 4:53 pm
Therefore, a decision should be expected at any time. [read post]
16 Oct 2018, 9:00 am
Power Integrations, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Apr 2015, 5:52 am
In this timely, pro se appeal, Stansbury raises one issue, which we quote: Did the trial judge Yolanda L. [read post]
25 Mar 2014, 11:00 pm
In Mitchell v. [read post]
25 Mar 2014, 11:00 pm
In Mitchell v. [read post]
16 Jan 2023, 6:00 am
Falls v. 1CL, Inc., 67 A.3d 521, 535 (Md. 2012). [read post]
3 Aug 2011, 9:55 pm
At the time the application that issued as the '052... [read post]
17 Sep 2010, 7:55 am
At that time, it was unclear whether the progress toward settlement in the Harmonix v. [read post]
24 Sep 2023, 9:59 pm
This focus puts putative interests the public may have in reducing present patent rights in favor of future ones, where granting such rights to present inventors (limited as they are in time) is more important that providing sufficient patent protection to permit exploitation and commercialization of the innovations disclosed... [read post]
