Search for: "Derring v. State"
Results 281 - 300
of 558
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Apr 2011, 8:05 am
Both are fully available to the United States, and, moreover, the United States is currently employing them. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 12:53 pm
Schütze: “Der gewöhnliche Aufenthaltsort juristischer Personen und die Verpflichtung zur Stellung einer Prozesskostensicherheit nach § 110 ZPO” – the English abstract reads as follows: Under § 110 ZPO (German Code of Civil Procedure) the court – on application of the defendant – has to make an order for security for costs if the claimant is resident abroad but not resident in an EU or EWR Member State. [read post]
11 Sep 2011, 12:38 pm
” – the English abstract reads as follows: Friedrich Carl v. [read post]
13 May 2022, 6:00 am
” Warhol Foundation v. [read post]
13 Jul 2012, 5:03 pm
Mick Haig Productions E.K. v. [read post]
13 Jul 2012, 5:03 pm
Mick Haig Productions E.K. v. [read post]
22 Oct 2006, 2:37 am
As for a system of import licenses, such a system is in principle contrary to Article 28 EC, which precludes the application in intra-Community trade of national provisions which require, even as a pure formality, import licences or any other similar procedure (Case 124/81 Commission v United Kingdom, paragraph 9, and Case C‑304/88 Commission v Belgium, paragraph 9; see also Case C‑212/03 Commission v France, paragraph 16, and Case E-1/94 Restamark, paragraphs… [read post]
30 Jun 2020, 10:55 am
Locke [v. [read post]
2 Oct 2017, 1:57 am
... to LuxembourgThe questions to the CJEUFurther to the CJEU reference, the questions in VG Media Gesellschaft zur Verwertung der Urheber- und Leistungsschutzrechte von Medienunternehmen mbH v Google Inc, C-299/17, have been finalized and are now available on the Curia website.They are:1. [read post]
18 Mar 2015, 8:00 am
Attorney Jay V. [read post]
15 Feb 2017, 2:53 am
In his 1987 article ‘Probleme der Völkerrechtsgeschichte’ (‘The Problems of International Legal History’), Heinhard Steiger argued that only very few, ‘mostly authors of the older generation’, were interested in international legal history. [read post]
22 Aug 2014, 10:05 am
The case is M.S.P.C. v. [read post]
30 Nov 2018, 10:42 am
The publisher's blurb says: This international and interdisciplinary Research Handbook brings together leading scholars and practitioners to discuss the state-of-the-art of ombudsman research. [read post]
1 Feb 2013, 7:35 am
Over on the 1709 Blog, Iona Harding tackles SAS v WPL and the continuing question of whether copyright can vest in a computer language, while Simon Fogarty guests some hot and revealing news concerning New Zealand's three sheep strikes and you're out file-sharing ruling. [read post]
14 Aug 2020, 1:21 pm
At the same time, the state's responsibility of deference appears to be deficient. [read post]
10 Mar 2011, 6:47 pm
(IP finance) United States US Patents – Decisions CAFC: In re Katz (part 2): Indefiniteness of computer processes (Patently-O) CAFC: Altair illustrates how to win by losing: Altair v Leddynamics (IPBiz) District Court E D Wisconsin: In Re Seagate does not dictate standard for pleading willful infringement claim: Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation, et. al. v. [read post]
11 Jul 2009, 2:19 am
Rainer Hüßtege: “Der Europäische Vollstreckungstitel in der Praxis” The article reviews a decision by the Higher Regional Court Stuttgart (23.10.2007 – 5 W 29/07) dealing with the requirements of a European Enforcement Order Certificate in terms of Art. 9 Regulation (EC) No. 805/2004 stating that the issue of the ceritificate requires according to Art. 6 No. 1… [read post]
4 May 2020, 5:45 am
For example, in Univ. of Utah v Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Forderung der Wissenschaften e.V.,13 the Federal Circuit explained that a state could not be an inventor, stating—The inventors of a patent are “the individual or, if a joint invention, the individuals collectively who invented or discovered the subject matter of the invention. [read post]
4 May 2020, 5:45 am
For example, in Univ. of Utah v Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Forderung der Wissenschaften e.V.,13 the Federal Circuit explained that a state could not be an inventor, stating—The inventors of a patent are “the individual or, if a joint invention, the individuals collectively who invented or discovered the subject matter of the invention. [read post]
