Search for: "US v. Givens"
Results 2381 - 2400
of 51,340
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Sep 2023, 3:11 am
In the case of Courvoisier v. [read post]
20 Sep 2023, 9:05 pm
Supreme Court has struck down cost considerations, such as Whitman v. [read post]
20 Sep 2023, 11:30 am
In this regard, Peruvian authors such as José Luis Gil, former head of the Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior, considered the lawsuit filed in favour of Víctor Polay Campos to be part of a mechanism used by those convicted of terrorism to obtain undue benefits, specifically financial compensation. [read post]
20 Sep 2023, 9:39 am
by Dennis Crouch Baxalta Inc. v. [read post]
20 Sep 2023, 7:13 am
The Unified Patent Court granted US biotech company 10x Genomics a preliminary injunction against rival NanoString. [read post]
20 Sep 2023, 7:13 am
UPDATE: The Unified Patent Court granted US biotech company 10x Genomics a preliminary injunction against rival NanoString. [read post]
19 Sep 2023, 11:00 pm
(Additionally, the court noted that it also had jurisdiction over three of the entities given their use of “New York correspondent bank accounts. [read post]
19 Sep 2023, 10:30 pm
The noun “foundations” used by the Court and the verb “founded on” used in Article 2 TEU with the overarching duty to ensure the observance of the law of integration in Article 19 TEU make a perfect match. [read post]
19 Sep 2023, 8:09 am
Smyth v. [read post]
19 Sep 2023, 7:42 am
[I will blog the NetChoice v. [read post]
19 Sep 2023, 6:07 am
See Doe v. [read post]
19 Sep 2023, 3:34 am
Further, FDA has not opined on whether REMS patents can be listed in the Orange Book (though the FTC did not mince words in saying that such listings were anticompetitive in the Jazz v. [read post]
19 Sep 2023, 2:00 am
See Banks v. [read post]
18 Sep 2023, 10:59 pm
See Carpenter v. [read post]
18 Sep 2023, 10:30 pm
Introduction Undoubtedly, the case Glukhin v. [read post]
18 Sep 2023, 7:38 am
State v. [read post]
18 Sep 2023, 4:59 am
While IPs — including the intended mother, where there is one — are not entitled to statutory maternity leave or pay, as this is reserved for those who have given birth (see also C-167/12 CD v ST [2014] 3 CMLR 15), provided the (different) eligibility criteria are satisfied, they may be entitled to statutory adoption leave and pay. [read post]
17 Sep 2023, 6:36 pm
In Columbia II, the Federal Circuit affirmed the jury instructions given were legally correct. [read post]
16 Sep 2023, 1:59 pm
Jury verdicts are given strong deference on appeal and so are usually not directly challenged. [read post]
