Search for: "Long v. Arnold"
Results 241 - 260
of 603
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Nov 2016, 6:36 pm
The facts of Arnold v Britton neatly illustrate this. [read post]
18 Nov 2016, 12:44 am
The judge held that the “undue burden” concept in English law (particularly as outlined by Arnold J in Eli Lilly v Janssen in 2014) was not particularly helpful under Australian law. [read post]
13 Oct 2016, 6:50 am
Following a long line of authority including Nikken v Pioneer [2005] and Nokia v IPCom [2011], Floyd LJ held that it was necessary to distinguish between pre-trial applications to amend and post-trial deletions on the one hand, and post-trial validating amendments by re-writing the claims on the other. [read post]
14 Sep 2016, 4:31 am
(Svensson [31]; no change in GS Media.)It seemed to follow from the reasoning in Svensson, although the judgment did not address this factual situation, that a link to an infringing copy would not infringe if, and for so long as, a copy of the same work was freely available somewhere on the internet with the authority of the copyright holder. [read post]
14 Sep 2016, 4:31 am
(Svensson [31]; no change in GS Media.)It seemed to follow from the reasoning in Svensson, although the judgment did not address this factual situation, that a link to an infringing copy would not infringe if, and for so long as, a copy of the same work was freely available somewhere on the internet with the authority of the copyright holder. [read post]
14 Sep 2016, 4:31 am
(Svensson [31]; no change in GS Media.)It seemed to follow from the reasoning in Svensson, although the judgment did not address this factual situation, that a link to an infringing copy would not infringe if, and for so long as, a copy of the same work was freely available somewhere on the internet with the authority of the copyright holder. [read post]
23 Aug 2016, 11:00 pm
Hot Coffee Hot Coffee begins with the notorious Liebeck v. [read post]
9 Aug 2016, 11:22 am
Ohio first joined this movement in 1993 in Arnold v. [read post]
9 Aug 2016, 10:44 am
Baer (a long time Washington Establishment type who is now Acting Associate Attorney General), that will be an excellent opportunity to raise some of these questions. [read post]
19 Jul 2016, 6:54 pm
The extent of how long the English court's arm is in this respect was a question posed in various guises in last week's interim decision of Mr Justice Arnold in Anan Kasei Co., Ltd & Rhodia Operations S.A.S. v Molycorp Chemicals & Oxides (Europe) [2016] EWHC 1722 . [read post]
Blocking orders against ISPs to combat trade-mark infringement legal says Court of Appeal in Cartier
12 Jul 2016, 6:28 am
The Court in Cartier International AG & Ors v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 658 (06 July 2016) confirmed the correctness of the prior comprehensive decision of Arnold J. in Cartier International AG & Ors v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd & Ors [2014] EWHC 3354 (Ch) (17 October 2014). [read post]
1 Jun 2016, 1:28 am
In my judgment Mr Arnold fell into error in characterising the registration of marks in a series in the way that he did. [read post]
24 May 2016, 4:52 pm
The class action Carter v. [read post]
23 May 2016, 12:15 am
| Anne Frank's diary & geoblocking | Magic Leap lampoons Google Glass | Arnold's decision in Richter Gedeon Vegyeszeti Gyar RT v Generics| US Trade Secrets Act passes House | Publishing and the Machine| DSM Communication on Platforms leaked! [read post]
19 May 2016, 6:37 am
Because the Regulation merely limited the "use" of trade marks they did not strip away the trade mark owner;s right to prevent or exclude others from using their mark (citing Arnold J in Pinterest v Premium Interest). [read post]
17 May 2016, 3:34 pm
Well, it has to do with a long-standing and "notorious" point in English patent law - disclosure.BackgroundPositec wish to sell robotic lawnmowers in the UK. [read post]
10 May 2016, 4:00 am
[California v. [read post]
5 May 2016, 6:59 am
State v. [read post]
30 Apr 2016, 4:04 am
In the landmark case of SAS Institute v World Programming Ltd, Arnold J agrees strongly that computer languages are not protected by copyright, even if there is some argument as to what actually constitutes a computer language. [read post]
21 Apr 2016, 7:25 am
However, in the case of American Science & Engineering Inc. v Rapiscan Systems Limited [2016] EWHC 756 (Pat), handed down on 11 April 2016, both sides appear to have at least tried to follow the guidance set out by Arnold J in Medimmune Limited v Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Limited [2011] EWHC 1669 (Pat). [read post]
