Search for: "In Interest of IV"
Results 281 - 300
of 6,749
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Jul 2009, 11:58 pm
The opinion, as described in the "Microsoft Wants to ‘Save’ the World, Using Restrictive Monopolies" article suggests that IV has gone bad.It's both surprising and not surprising to me that IV is said to have gone offensive, especially with the recent Intuit license that has everyone in a frenzy.I thought the whole purpose of IV/RPX was to form a patent protection conglomerate to protect against frivolous lawsuits claiming patent infringement… [read post]
26 Jan 2007, 12:18 am
(I found this unpublished case interesting because it was about reverse domain hijacking, used the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, and most imporantly, Penthouse was the plaintiff. [read post]
26 Jan 2010, 2:34 am
Confusion appears twice in the Policy: “confusing similarity” in paragraph 4(a)(i) and “likelihood of confusion” in paragraph 4(b)(iv). [read post]
12 Nov 2006, 9:06 pm
Now Lance "Wince Low", the king of mobile suds, emails me more unsolicited words of "wisdom": "This is rather interesting indeed. [read post]
26 Mar 2011, 10:04 pm
Ive seen a television advertisement crowing how medical malpractice reform will enhance patient safety (without mentioning the proposed cap), when common sense fails to explain how reducing a doctors or hospitals potential liability will make them act with more care towards the patient. [read post]
3 Mar 2009, 7:20 pm
Bysiewicz (08A469), may be worth a read for anyone interested in the history or politics of the issue. [read post]
5 Dec 2011, 10:02 am
Of the many issues considered in the judgment, four* are especially important: (i) whether shareholders or creditors who consent to a scheme at a meeting are nevertheless entitled to raise an objection at the stage of sanction; (ii) the scope of the obligation of the transferor company to submit “latest” financial statements etc. under the proviso to section 391; (iii) whether it is open to a company in dire financial straits to apply for a scheme and (iv) role of the Company… [read post]
26 Sep 2007, 11:02 am
Verizon had a cognizable interest in obtaining an injunction to put an end to infringement of its patents; it did not have a cognizable interest in putting Vonage out of business. [read post]
1 Mar 2016, 4:48 am
I'm very interested in people's thoughts on this. [read post]
14 Jun 2018, 2:02 pm
If you are interested in more information on how to run for president-elect or district director, please click here. [read post]
18 May 2011, 9:25 am
One interesting aspect of the case is each party's choice of litigation counsel. [read post]
18 Nov 2008, 10:30 am
The proposed amendment would clarify that the corroborating circumstances requirement under the rule applies to statements against penal interest introduced by the government. [read post]
12 Feb 2014, 7:45 pm
The Court based its holding on the fact that § 547(c)(3) explicitly deals with secured interest transactions, and allowing a § 547(c)(1) defense on such transactions would render § 547(c)(3) pure surplusage. [read post]
18 Oct 2018, 9:37 am
The IRS may reverse a certification if: (i) all certified tax modules are fully paid; (ii) the tax becomes legally unenforceable; (iii) the tax debt falls under one of the statutory exclusions; or (iv) an adjustment reduces the tax debt below $51,000. [read post]
21 Mar 2016, 5:28 pm
§ 271(e)(2)(A) that the submission of aparagraph IV certification constitutes an act of infringement.1general link: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders [read post]
2 Nov 2015, 4:17 am
Finally, Part IV, which is divided into two subsections, advances policy-based arguments for such a uniform application of the Lexmark standard. [read post]
21 Sep 2012, 11:57 am
Part IV in our series will explore more on this topic – “how to invent options for mutual gain”. [read post]
12 Dec 2023, 7:43 am
A student who is on an F-1 visa could be found inadmissible under INA § 212(a)(3)(B)(i)(IV)(bb) as a representatives of “a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity”. [read post]
10 Jun 2010, 4:38 pm
It is interesting that both Burlington and Carter were unanimous decisions by the high court.The issue then was whether the 1997 amendments required a different result in this case. [read post]
18 Sep 2013, 11:42 am
It occurs to me that IB readers might be interested in some of my work in that venue, so here are some free samples:Part 1 of a 3-part series on Universal LifeAn explication of Insurable InterestEnjoy! [read post]
