Search for: "English v. General Development Corp."
Results 221 - 234
of 234
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Dec 2015, 2:51 am
In Europe, The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that the consent of a copyright holder does not cover the distribution of an object incorporating a work where that object has been altered after its initial marketing to such an extent that it constitutes a new reproduction of that work (Case C‑419/13, Art & Allposters International BV v Stichting Pictoright) with Eleonora opining that the decision means that that there is no such thing as a general… [read post]
9 Mar 2010, 1:32 pm
James Marcovitz, Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, News Corp. [read post]
20 Feb 2017, 5:03 pm
Development of serologic tests allowed definitive diagnosis of hepatitis B. [read post]
3 Sep 2014, 10:43 pm
” Prosecutor v. [read post]
21 Dec 2009, 3:06 am
Miller (Lewis and Clark), Judith V. [read post]
17 Jan 2022, 12:12 pm
Target customer: In-house legal departments and law firm attorneys who serve as outside general counsel. [read post]
17 Jan 2022, 12:12 pm
Target customer: In-house legal departments and law firm attorneys who serve as outside general counsel. [read post]
9 Jul 2010, 6:12 am
CAFC: Bilski V. [read post]
23 May 2014, 11:37 am
Goliath is the army because, until recently, its officer corps has been above the law. [read post]
2 Jul 2021, 8:06 am
HDEC’s assessment of corruption risk is integrated in a general risk assessment, and appears not to be particularly detailed. [read post]
7 Sep 2021, 3:21 pm
The UFCW (and individual complainants) brought a complaint against MedReleaf of an unfair labour practice in violation of the AEPA that the AFRAAT dismissed in United Food and Commercial Workers International Union v MedReleaf Corp. [read post]
5 Aug 2021, 5:41 am
They previously were amici in Google v. [read post]
15 Aug 2016, 4:31 pm
The reality is that the more things and generations change, the more they stay the same. [read post]
16 Jun 2020, 2:18 pm
Judge Anderson’s decision hinges on whether Mandiant’s work was merely general consulting services and directed by Capital One (and thereby not protected by the work product doctrine) or was instead in anticipation of litigation and directed by counsel (and thereby considered attorney-client work product). [read post]
