Search for: "Deter v. Deter"
Results 3101 - 3120
of 5,290
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Mar 2013, 4:00 am
Although this claim was not considered on its merits because it was time barred, the court (in preliminary proceedings) accepted that patent assignments may “unduly” lessen competition where “the assignment increases the assignees' market power in excess of that inherent in the patent rights assigned” (Eli Lilly v Apotex 2009 FC 991 at para. 750, 881, aff’d 2010 FCA 240; see also Apotex v Eli Lilly 2005 FCA 361). [read post]
13 Mar 2013, 7:46 pm
When the Ninth Circuit decided, Mazza v. [read post]
13 Mar 2013, 7:35 am
Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. [read post]
9 Mar 2013, 3:37 am
Union of India v. [read post]
8 Mar 2013, 4:55 am
The case is VanBuren v. [read post]
7 Mar 2013, 2:22 pm
In Mathis v. [read post]
6 Mar 2013, 2:20 pm
Hans von Spakovsky, in his recent article in the National Review, “Strike Down Section 5,” gets it wrong when he says the Supreme Court should hold Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional in the case now pending before it, Shelby County, Alabama v. [read post]
6 Mar 2013, 10:44 am
Gillespie v. [read post]
6 Mar 2013, 7:14 am
In this case, no.The case is Asabor v. [read post]
5 Mar 2013, 10:41 am
Plaintiffs also unsuccessfully attempt to distinguish Ashcroft v. [read post]
4 Mar 2013, 7:00 pm
When the Ninth Circuit decided, Mazza v. [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 2:30 pm
All the while Maya v. [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 7:20 am
The orders I granted in Dramatico v Sky are likely to have been less easy to circumvent than the original order made in 20C Fox v BT (No 2) [...]. [read post]
26 Feb 2013, 12:58 pm
Here's the amicus curiae brief of Sun founder Scott McNealy and former Sun Executive Vice President Brian Sutphin (this post continues below the document): Scott McNealy-Brian Sutphin Amicus Curiae Brief in Oracle v. [read post]
25 Feb 2013, 1:35 pm
On Wednedsay the Court is hearing oral argument in Shelby County v. [read post]
24 Feb 2013, 12:15 pm
The decision in EEOC v. [read post]
22 Feb 2013, 11:33 am
Brooks v City of San Mateo (9th Cir. 2000) 229 F.3d 917, 929. [read post]
21 Feb 2013, 7:25 am
The purpose of punitive damages is to punish a tortfeasor for outrageous conduct and to deter him or other[s] like him from similar conduct. [read post]
20 Feb 2013, 9:00 am
The cases they discuss are the Massachusetts and California cases finding a right to same sex marriage (as well as the legislative arguments made successfully to support New York’s Marriage Equality Act); another is the Lawrence v Texas, which they argue validated intimacy, whether homosexual or heterosexual, as both a moral good and a protected choice. [read post]
18 Feb 2013, 9:01 pm
In Ferguson v. [read post]
