Search for: "Campbell v. Campbell" Results 221 - 240 of 3,025
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Jul 2023, 3:33 am
Author Basher Eyre Licence CC BY-SA 2.0 Source Wikimedia Commons Jane LambertPatents Court (Campbell Forsyth) Safestand Ltd v Weston Homes Plc and others [2023] EWHC 1098 (Pat) (10 May 2023)A fundamental principle of civil litigation in England and Wales is that each party discloses to the other(s) any and all documents in his or her possession, custody or control that relate(s) to an issue in [read post]
3 Mar 2024, 6:34 am
 Jane LambertCourt of Appeal (Lords Justices Lewison, Moylan and Birss) Newron Pharmaceuticals SPA v The Comptroller General of Patents, Trade Marks and Designs [2024] EWCA Civ 128 (15 Feb 2024)This was an appeal against the decision of Mr Recorder Campbell KC to uphold  Dr L Cullen's refusal to grant a supplementary protection certificate ("SPC") to Newron [read post]
7 Aug 2020, 12:36 am
Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Recorder Campbell QC) Shenzhen Carku Technology Co Ltd v The Noco Company [2020] EWHC 2104 (Pat) (24 July 2020) Last year, Prof Frederick Mostert and I were commissioned by the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO") to report on IP enforcement measures especially anti-piracy measures in the digital environment. [read post]
31 Aug 2021, 6:56 am
Saint BarthélemyAuthor Starus Licence CC-BY-SA 3.9  Source Wikimedia Commons Jane LambertIntellectual Property Enterprise Court (Mr Recorder Campbell) Easygroup Ltd and others v Easyway SBH and another (Rev1) [2021] EWHC 2007 (IPEC) (22 July 2021)Saint Barthélemy is a small French possession in the West Indes. [read post]
18 Mar 2020, 9:13 am
  Photo showing intermediate age-related macular degeneration Author US National Eye Institute Source Wikipedia Macular Degeneration  Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Recorder Campbell) Master Data Center, Inc v Comptroller  [2020] EWHC 572 (Pat) (11 March 2020) A supplementary protection certificate ("SPC") is an intellectual property right ("IPR") that protects the active ingredients [read post]
31 Oct 2012, 10:53 pm by Chris Bruni
Back in May I discussed the Campbell v Ford case, which held that an employer had no duty to protect family members of employees from secondary exposure to asbestos used during the course of the employer's business. [read post]