Search for: "PETERS v. US " Results 261 - 280 of 5,487
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Aug 2023, 12:06 pm
The idea here is as old as those expressed by Henry Ford in the Famous 1919 US case Dodge v Ford: happy, well used and paid workers make great consumers and reduce labor issues even when they can act in concert. [read post]
3 Aug 2023, 1:03 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
Michael Carroll (w/ Peter Jaszi), Fair Use After Google and Warhol Codification is a big deal; clarifies that fair use is a distinct doctrine, whereas well into 20th century courts were using it as noninfringement. [read post]
3 Aug 2023, 12:37 pm
In previous versions of the Monitor(Dussel Peters 2021) it was highlighted based on sources such as the Economic Commissionfor Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) that LAC should invest around 5% of GDP—and up to 6.2% according to the same source—in infrastructure, although it was barely 2%for the most recent period 2015-2019 (Dussel Peters 2021). [read post]
2 Aug 2023, 2:14 am by Kate O’Sullivan (Bristows)
On 25 July 2023, the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Teva & Sandoz v Astellas[1] concerning the validity of Astellas’ patent to mirabegron for use in the treatment of overactive bladder (“OAB”). [read post]
31 Jul 2023, 2:23 am by INFORRM
Craig Wright, despite finding that Peter McCormack had caused serious damage to his reputation, Wright v McCormack [2023] EWCA Civ 892. [read post]
30 Jul 2023, 3:05 am by Laurence Lai (Simmons & Simmons LLP)
  Country of origin: new European applications in 2022 v requests for unitary effect   On the other hand, proprietors from Asia and the US appear overall less enthusiastic relative to their proportion of European filings. [read post]
27 Jul 2023, 10:48 pm by Riann Winget
Supreme Court’s recent decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. [read post]
25 Jul 2023, 1:43 am by Matthieu Dhenne (Dhenne Avocats)
Or that the credibility of the technical effect is assessed at the priority or filing date (e.g., TGI Paris, October 6, 2009, RG n°07/16446, Teva v. [read post]
Comment The Court of Appeal noted that it was unfortunate that the trial judge was not referred to Hallen v Brabantia. [read post]