Search for: "California v. Lord"
Results 261 - 280
of 304
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Nov 2009, 4:51 am
(IPEG) United Kingdom EWHC: Registry decision leads to High Court estoppels: William Evans and Susan Mary Evans (trading as Firecraft) v Focal Point Fires plc (Marques) Lord Hoffmann on patentability of software and business methods (IPKat) Making life more comfy for designers? [read post]
16 Nov 2009, 4:51 am
(IPEG) United Kingdom EWHC: Registry decision leads to High Court estoppels: William Evans and Susan Mary Evans (trading as Firecraft) v Focal Point Fires plc (Marques) Lord Hoffmann on patentability of software and business methods (IPKat) Making life more comfy for designers? [read post]
23 Oct 2009, 9:09 am
[See pp. 165-204, on Vásquez.] [read post]
18 Oct 2009, 5:41 am
” DeBoer v. [read post]
12 Oct 2009, 12:01 am
Take, for example, last week’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court in Salazar v. [read post]
18 Sep 2009, 6:38 am
(Internet Cases) Global - Trade Marks Non-commercial groups oppose changes in ICANN Committee (Intellectual Property Watch) Global - Patents Lord Hoffman in agreement with Tufty the Cat on software patents? [read post]
20 Aug 2009, 5:36 pm
Last month I blogged about Sedgwick Claims Management v. [read post]
3 Aug 2009, 6:18 am
: Nokia Corporation v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (PatLit) Is it safe? [read post]
2 Jul 2009, 5:18 am
Rivera v. [read post]
27 Feb 2009, 5:00 am
Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc (Property, intangible) US CAFC reopens DNA detection patent case between Enzo Biochem and former Applera (Law360) US District Court E D California: Antitrust and patent misuse claims tossed in case alleging California Table Grape Commission accepted royalties from growers for invalid patents covering grape varieties (Law360) US: AntiCancer launches second effort to convince federal court that Cambridge Research & Instrumentation… [read post]
6 Feb 2009, 7:09 am
(Lord knows, we can use all the help we can get.)So we welcome aboard our new visitors who came through this link from Russell Jackson's Consumer Class Actions and Mass Torts blog.We're also delighted to be spared the effort of writing up Williams v. [read post]
4 Feb 2009, 8:18 am
In September, 2008, the ACLU asked the federal appeals court in California to reinstate the lawsuit. [read post]
17 Dec 2008, 11:54 am
Lord (Wis. 2006) 723 N.W.2d 425; see also People v. [read post]
15 Dec 2008, 4:14 pm
By Connor Moyle A recent appellate decision, Starbucks Corp. v. [read post]
12 Dec 2008, 4:56 am
In Starbucks v. [read post]
11 Dec 2008, 1:50 am
So, the California disclaimer did nothing to stop Erik Lords and his band of merry putative classmembers from filing suit, claiming the application form was defective. [read post]
14 Nov 2008, 11:20 am
"The Defendant raised the same dual criminality challenge as well as others [8] before the District Court in California. [read post]
21 Aug 2008, 4:08 pm
Maybe not anymore - if the theory of this California case is adopted in other jurisdictions: This excellent article is a must read: "Barred by Lunatics Law: How a preexisting substituted judgment order can preclude posthumous challenges to a will in California (and possibly elsewhere): the lesson of Murphy v. [read post]
19 Jul 2008, 11:22 am
" "Yes, Your Worship (or M'Lord). [read post]
13 Jul 2008, 4:50 am
The Court saw the license denial as an effort by New York to horde a resource and thereby keep prices for its consumers low.Edwards v California (1941) considered a challenge to a California law aimed at reducing the influx of dustbowl indigents to the state. [read post]
