Search for: "Holder v. United States"
Results 2561 - 2580
of 3,854
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Jul 2011, 9:04 am
This infamous moment in the United States’ “global war on terror” will forever remain an ugly scar on our nation’s legacy as a people that (allegedly) value human rights and protect human dignity. [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 9:00 pm
Crespin-Valladares v. [read post]
21 May 2010, 10:54 am
The latest statistics from the United States Patent and Trademark Office on ex parte re-examination show that 92% of requests for reexaminations are granted. [read post]
8 Feb 2011, 2:28 pm
Malilia was not then eligible for relief, the judge ordered his removal from the United States and Mr. [read post]
26 Aug 2010, 4:05 am
Integra and Burnham sued Merck, Cheresh, and Scripps for patent infringement.307 Writing for a unanimous Court in Merck KGaA v. [read post]
6 Feb 2009, 12:41 pm
—————– Violators would forfeit their 180-day exclusivity period: Section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(5)(D)(i)(V)) is amended by inserting `section 29 of the Clayton Act or’ after `that the agreement has violated’. [read post]
15 Aug 2014, 7:26 am
While in the Voting Section, she received the high honor of being invited by the United States Solicitor General to sit at counsel table during the Supreme Court argument in Reno v. [read post]
19 Jan 2021, 10:43 am
In United States v. [read post]
22 Feb 2012, 6:45 am
Today the Court will hear oral arguments in United States v. [read post]
2 Jun 2016, 8:29 am
Holder (2013). [read post]
6 May 2011, 7:08 pm
In M.B.Z. v. [read post]
31 May 2012, 7:46 am
National Protest on DOMA—Michael Lehet (Flickr.com) When some constitutionally suspect classifications (race, religion, alienage, or national origin) are not at issue, nor are any fundamental constitutional rights at stake, a law must be upheld if there is any “reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification” (United States Railroad Retirement Bd. v. [read post]
22 May 2023, 4:37 am
The Court is considering if the trademark holder is protected by the Lanham Act or if the toys’ producer instead receives heightened First Amendment protection due to the humorous nature of the dog toys, among other factors.Merrill v. [read post]
29 Jan 2015, 6:00 am
§ 1182(a)(6)(C).3See, e.g., Dakura v. [read post]
20 Oct 2010, 12:55 pm
As one might expect with tax statutes, there are lots of defined terms so when we say “American” we really mean a “specified United States person”. [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 9:37 am
” The Court also heard oral arguments yesterday in United States v. [read post]
1 Aug 2014, 2:54 am
In the wake of the CJEU's decision in Public Relations Consultants Association Ltd v Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and Others (case C‑360/13) which held that browsing and viewing articles online does not require authorisation from the copyright holder, The PRCA has rejected an offer of a meeting with the Copyright Licensing Agency because it says it falls short of the terms it called for. [read post]
16 Mar 2013, 12:07 pm
In yesterday's post on Google's opening brief in the appeal of Judge Posner's Apple v. [read post]
31 Dec 2018, 6:10 am
Let’s look at the facts of United States v. [read post]
15 Mar 2013, 12:40 pm
Last summer both Apple and Google's Motorola appealed Judge Posner's June 2012 dismissal of a two-way Apple v. [read post]
