Search for: "Floyd v. State"
Results 281 - 300
of 761
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jul 2013, 2:53 pm
One such case is Generics [UK] Ltd (t/a Mylan) v Yeda Research And Development Co Ltd and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 925, decided yesterday by a three-man Court of Appeal for England and Wales which consisted of two specialist IP judges -- Lords Justices Kitchin and Floyd -- together with Lord Justice Moses. [read post]
22 Nov 2012, 6:18 pm
In Holland v. [read post]
15 Nov 2024, 1:42 pm
As discussed in Watkins v. [read post]
17 Jul 2009, 2:55 am
Scott, 116 F.3d 137, 140 & n.2 (5th Cir. 1997); Floyd v. [read post]
26 Mar 2015, 12:57 pm
Floyd J referred the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling on whether streaming constituted a "communication to the public". [read post]
28 Jul 2022, 9:59 am
State v. [read post]
21 Jun 2024, 9:27 am
Such was the case in Kerson v. [read post]
10 Feb 2015, 6:15 am
Quite correctly Floyd LJ states:"I have to remind myself that the circumstances in which we could set to one side the judge's conclusion on an essentially factual issue are very limited". [read post]
7 Mar 2013, 5:16 pm
First, the Advocate-General's Opinion in the Amazon.com reference from the Austrian courts (see Eleonora's excellent summary here) and second, the CJEU's decision in the ITV v TV Catchup reference from Mr Justice Floyd in the English courts.Background For those not up to speed, broadcasters including ITV alleged that TV Catchup had infringed the copyright in its broadcasts by communicating those broadcasts to the public through a process of electronic transmission. [read post]
21 Oct 2019, 1:34 am
[This writer salutes the judicial collaboration jointly undertaken by IP-heavyweight Floyd LJ along with Henderson and Peter Jackson LJJ]. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 9:36 am
Lash's response to the Amar brothers' amicus brief in Trump v. [read post]
19 Feb 2007, 10:21 am
Floyd, II v. [read post]
19 Jan 2012, 7:29 am
Petitioner’s reply Floyd v. [read post]
5 Nov 2007, 9:00 am
For publication opinions today (4): In Floyd Tewell v. [read post]
13 Jul 2020, 1:30 pm
In 2001, the US Supreme Court handed down Atwater v. [read post]
8 Nov 2011, 11:32 am
Whereas the latter had stated that if Jinse entered into an insolvency procedure, that would trigger a right to rescind and therefore the refund guarantee (Article XII.3), the bonds did not. [read post]
9 Dec 2017, 7:30 am
The entire statement is reprinted below: Supreme Court of the United States Christopher Anthony Floyd v. [read post]
17 Oct 2021, 6:52 pm
V. [read post]
28 Oct 2023, 3:24 pm
Troops, Inc. v. [read post]
23 May 2023, 6:02 am
Related Cases: Williams v. [read post]
