Search for: "Party X v. Party Y"
Results 241 - 260
of 462
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Aug 2015, 2:36 pm
See A and B v Rotherham MBC [2014] EWFC 47 Fam. [read post]
28 Jul 2015, 6:00 am
And I think this view is often echoed in the media coverage of trademark bullying cases, where we see the sentiment expressed time and time again that “there’s no way anybody is confused about X and Y. [read post]
23 Jul 2015, 5:04 am
Sec’y of Labor, 471 U.S. 290, 296 (1985) (quoting Mitchell v. [read post]
23 Jun 2015, 5:47 pm
Y. 301, 80 N. [read post]
31 May 2015, 3:47 am
As a reminder to those unfamiliar with these claims the format is below:‘Use of drug X in the manufacture of a medicament for treating disease Y. [read post]
8 May 2015, 3:54 am
Whether Boomer, X’er, Y’er, Millennial, young or old or middle-aged — I’d love to see it end. [read post]
25 Apr 2015, 11:03 am
The first edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence [Manual] was published in 1994, a year after the Supreme Court delivered its opinion in Daubert. [read post]
21 Apr 2015, 6:01 am
Courts and regulators provided some clarification (in Microsoft v. [read post]
19 Mar 2015, 6:00 am
Must it be too expensive for the public system to absorb, or is it enough that the government has decided to fund procedure x over treatment y, both being equally medically effective? [read post]
16 Mar 2015, 4:23 am
In my example, the figure is $50,000 x .062, or $3,100.00. [read post]
7 Mar 2015, 1:36 pm
Mooney v. [read post]
28 Feb 2015, 8:23 am
Only certain speech is protected, and only from certain employers and parties and only in certain cases. [read post]
28 Feb 2015, 8:23 am
Only certain speech is protected, and only from certain employers and parties and only in certain cases. [read post]
13 Feb 2015, 1:47 am
The Morgan Court thus indicated that, even though an authorized buyer of product X was free of the patent owner’s patent on that product, the buyer could not, by virtue of his purchase, prevent the patent owner from enforcing his patent as to product Y, even though Y was specifically designed to be used with X and, at a minimum, made X more useful than it otherwise would be and, indeed, was essential to X’s utility. [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 6:31 am
Its reasoning for so holding is entirely consistent with the approach to section 60(2) laid down by the Court of Appeal in this country in Grimme v Scott and KCI v Smith & Nephew (see my previous judgment at [102]).Fourthly, the Court took into account (at [4.34]-[4.36]) the fact that Sun had not taken steps which it could have taken, but this does not appear to have been critical to its reasoning. [read post]
24 Jan 2015, 8:19 pm
Can we claim modulators of activity X for treating disease Y? [read post]
22 Dec 2014, 6:45 am
The owner’s delegation to the operator to do X, Y, and Z for the owner is the kind of relationship that establishes an agency. [read post]
17 Dec 2014, 11:40 am
Since the "corporation" is the nominal party in a derivative suit, Judge Callahan says, it's the "same" party. [read post]
12 Dec 2014, 5:06 am
The claim is unlikely to define a single mixture, but, either because x y and z are defined with ranges, or because other conditions v and w also affect the outcome but are not specified, a number of mixtures are possible that fall within the scope of the claims.The Anon went on to say“Said mixture not being characterisable by techniques in common practice today, but identifiable by a 3rd party using their new fangled gadget, such that they are able to… [read post]
10 Dec 2014, 12:31 am
The reason is that the EPO interprets, for the purposes of assessing novelty, a claim that states "X obtained by process Y" as a claim to X as such, and will consider such a claim as lacking novelty if X as such is not new. [read post]
