Search for: "Low v. Low"
Results 2901 - 2920
of 15,539
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Jun 2013, 8:50 am
In Ikikhueme v. [read post]
29 Nov 2023, 4:20 am
In the non-precedential decision by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the case of Smith v. [read post]
18 Dec 2014, 6:09 pm
The case -- Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. [read post]
12 Apr 2020, 6:01 pm
Many low-income older Iowans are financially exploited by caretakers, family and "friends". [read post]
28 Jan 2020, 5:00 am
Here is a case that highlights the uncertainty associated with sending a jury back out to deliberate further after they have entered a zero ($0) in an admitted liability case.In the case of Vella v. [read post]
9 Aug 2022, 6:22 am
The case is Village Green at Sayville v. [read post]
1 Jul 2014, 5:00 am
Mid-morning yesterday, the Internet broke shortly after the Supreme Court issued its 5-4 decision in HHS v. [read post]
12 Jun 2018, 5:00 am
In the case of Parisi v. [read post]
6 Jan 2024, 6:22 am
Yang analysed the recent judgment in Optis v Apple Trial E (one of six related trials), which focuses on the terms of a FRAND licence and the conduct of the parties in the negotiations.Marcel Pemsel reviewed the new book by Pierre Heuzé, written in French, entitled L'épuisement des droits de propriété intellectuelle sur un matériel biologique en droit suisse [Exhaustion of intellectual property rights in biological material under Swiss law]. [read post]
24 Mar 2017, 7:08 am
" That sounds like a low bar. [read post]
13 Mar 2013, 1:58 am
Dynamite Games Pty Limited v Aruze Gaming Australia Pty Limited [2013] FCA 163 (4 March 2013) Australia’s innovation patent is widely considered to have an unreasonably low threshold of validity – so much so, in fact, that last year IP Australia put forward a proposal to eliminate the ‘innovative step’ standard entirely, and require that innovation patent claims meet the same test for ‘inventive step’ as a standard patent. [read post]
12 Jan 2024, 9:30 pm
" This process, they argue, "privileges low price over all other criteria—effectively preempting local governments from using their procurement authority to sponsor public works projects meeting pressing social needs. [read post]
7 May 2015, 1:39 pm
CAL PURE PISTACHIOS, INC. v. [read post]
22 Oct 2019, 1:57 pm
In United States v. [read post]
29 Sep 2021, 9:10 am
Adir Int’l, LLC v. [read post]
14 Jan 2013, 4:10 pm
See Childs v. [read post]
27 Nov 2013, 7:28 am
The former standard was very low and was triggered by even the most minor failure to observe fiduciary duties. [read post]
17 Jun 2019, 5:43 am
Brome Madd Couple Well Matcht v. i, in Wks. (1873) I. 92 Noonings, and intermealiary Lunchings.4 words, and 3 of them are new to me: l. noonings, 2. intermealiary, 3. lunchings. [read post]
12 May 2014, 5:18 am
In Davis v. [read post]
6 Feb 2019, 4:17 am
ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. v. [read post]
