Search for: "In Re Application for Order Enforcing a Subpoena"
Results 281 - 300
of 341
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Mar 2011, 9:01 pm
On the judicial assistance front, we have In re Republic of Ecuador (N.D. [read post]
11 Feb 2011, 3:59 am
(IP Dragon) Europe Competition trumps IP in footie decoder pub brawl: Football Association Premier League Ltd & Others v QC Leisure & Others, Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd (IPKat) (1709 Blog) (1709 Blog) (IPKat) (Azrights) EPO puts an end to the practice of resurrecting invalid claims in a divisional application: T 0051/08 Res iudicata in a divisional application/CANON (Kluwer Patent Blog) Greece Police arrest five in operation to shut down popular… [read post]
21 Jan 2011, 8:53 am
Disputing would like to thank Paul Lurie, partner at Schiff Hardin, LLP’s Chicago office for bringing In re the Subpoena Issued to Beck’s Superior Hybrids, Inc., No. 29A05-1008-MI-489, (Ind. [read post]
13 Oct 2010, 7:55 am
We’re not concerned with the last two issues, only with the first one. [read post]
8 Sep 2010, 11:23 am
So according to the Third Circuit, a magistrate judge has discretion to turn down an application for an order even if the 2703(d) order is satisfied. [read post]
30 Jun 2010, 5:04 am
In re Grand Jury No. 09-1, 2010 U.S. [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 5:00 pm
For purposes of this subsection, "emergency services personnel" shall include, but not be limited to, any paid or volunteer fireman, any person engaged in emergency first-aid or medical services and any law enforcement officer. [read post]
18 Jun 2010, 5:37 am
Complying with a subpoena doesn’t transform a civilian into an agent of the state. [read post]
18 Jun 2010, 3:58 am
Q: what happens if you receive a subpoena from a class [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 1:47 pm
We’re all a little uncomfortable with the new places that information technology is taking us. [read post]
11 May 2010, 1:50 pm
All Documents are provided on a non-exclusive license basis only for your personal one-time use for non-commercial purposes, without any right to re-license, sublicense, distribute, assign or transfer such license. [read post]
28 Apr 2010, 4:58 am
On December 22, 2009, the Government filed a Response, which stated in the accompanying brief: In order to examine the contents of the encryption file, the government issued a grand jury subpoena ordering Defendant to provide all passwords associated with its computer. [read post]
23 Apr 2010, 4:58 am
Singer: If we’re looking at someone and want to see the response; if there’s something unique about the complaint and we’re trying to figure out what’s going on. [read post]
29 Mar 2010, 6:58 am
(Class 99) Moral rights: no grey areas – SABIP’s ‘International Perspectives on Moral Rights’ debate (IPKat) ‘Film’ includes the copyright in it for tax purposes, says Court of Appeal (IP finance) United States US General Our comments to the IP Enforcement Coordinator (Public Knowledge) Public interest groups ask targeted enforcement for intellectual property (Public Knowledge) (EFF) US Patents Forest Group decision has lead to… [read post]
19 Mar 2010, 10:43 am
A.The Government Has Been An Advocate For Law Enforcement Efforts, Not For Safeguarding Fourth Amendment Rights. [read post]
26 Feb 2010, 5:09 am
In the Order, the court noted that CRST was a “prevailing party” and stated that “CRST may file an application for attorneys' fees from the EEOC[.] [read post]
28 Jan 2010, 8:00 am
If they're not, we'll live by the rules, but we'll certainly not be content.For similar reasons, we’re also reasonably happy with the recent decision in In Re: Ortho Evra Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1742, slip op. [read post]
28 Dec 2009, 6:39 am
As I explained in that post, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars the government from re-prosecuting someone for the same crime; but as I also explained, the U.S. [read post]
15 Dec 2009, 9:24 am
In order to comply with ICANN rules, policies or procedures. [read post]
6 Dec 2009, 9:11 pm
The subpoena response provided EPA with information leading to this enforcement case and the underlying allegations that eight lease transactions from 2004 and 2005 by MA2 were in violation of the Lead Disclosure Rule. [read post]
