Search for: "MUSIC v. STATE" Results 3261 - 3280 of 4,608
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Dec 2008, 2:00 pm
(Class 46) Trading Standards officers uses new inspection powers granted under Copyright, Designs and Patent Act (Out-Law)   United States US General IP legislation to watch in 2009 (Law360) IP cases to follow in 2009 (Law360) US Trade Representative issues statement on Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ContentAgenda) Does the Federal Circuit need a fresh viewpoint? [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
  The central idea was that law, like ballet, music, and theater, could not possibly be understood only by reading texts, scores, notations, or scripts. [read post]
21 Jul 2021, 6:00 am by Ana Popovich
According to the letter, “[v]irtually all of the children did not speak English, and most federal detailees in the dormitories did not speak Spanish or the other indigenous languages spoken by the children. [read post]
3 Feb 2020, 2:13 pm by Kevin Kaufman
For example, a business in State A might sell into State B, but for whatever reason that income might not be taxed in State B, a throwback rule would subject the income from the sale into State B to State A’s corporate tax. [read post]
19 Mar 2019, 8:15 am by ricelawmd_3p2zve
The ban extends to all smartphones, digital music players, tablets and any device allowing drivers to listen to music players, talk, text, play games, check their emails or even get directions. [read post]
28 Jul 2011, 3:25 am
Songs Ltd and others v Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc [1988] 1 A.C. 1013, when the sale of tape-to-tape recording machines was not regarded as "authorising" infringement of the music copied by them since the company that made and sold the machines had not acted as though it had an entitlement to permit infringing acts by those machines' users. [read post]
1 May 2009, 11:00 am
: In re Kubin and KSR International Co v Teleflex Inc (Patent Docs)   US Patents – Decisions CAFC: USPTO, Tafas & GSK request extension for reconsideration (IP Watchdog) CAFC: Patent on sex aid is obvious: Ritchie v Vast Resources (AKA Topco) (Patently-O) (Hal Wegner) CAFC: Assigning patent rights: Euclid Chemical v Vector Corrosion (Patently-O) (Hal Wegner) District Court E D Michigan: LEDdynamics wins summary judgment in LED tube patent suit… [read post]
29 Jan 2024, 1:35 am by INFORRM
Art, Music and Copyright On 24 January 2024, HHJ Clarke handed down judgement in the case of Thatchers Cider Company Limited v Aldi Stores Limited [2024] EWHC 88 (IPEC). [read post]
20 Sep 2010, 1:38 pm by @ErikJHeels
http://domainnamewire.com/2010/09/09/top-100-brands-secure-co-domains-through-special-program/ * 7 Services To Find and Reserve Your Name Across The Web (2010-08-17) http://mashable.com/2010/08/17/reserve-social-media-names/ * A Mere Mortal's Guide To Patents Post-Bilski (Or Why §101 Is A Red Herring) (2010-07-09) On 06/28/10, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Bilski v. [read post]
20 Nov 2009, 6:00 pm
§ 101 rejections of software-based method claims in light of In re Bilski (FoundPersuasive) US Patents – Decisions District Court E D Texas: Computerised business method patent fails Bilski test under 35 USC 101: H&R Block Tax Services v Jackson Hewitt Tax Services Inc (Peter Zura's 271 Patent Blog) (Patently-O) District Court N D Illinois: Internet archive website is admissible evidence in touchscreen keyboard patent case: SP Techs, LLC v Garmin Int’l,… [read post]
26 Feb 2010, 3:00 am
Amazon.com (Washington State Patent Law Blog)   US Patents – Lawsuits and strategic steps Activision - Patent Compliance Group files qui tam action against Activision (Patent Arcade) Google - Inside Google’s first patent trial: Function Media, L.L.C. v. [read post]
26 Feb 2010, 3:00 am
Amazon.com (Washington State Patent Law Blog)   US Patents – Lawsuits and strategic steps Activision - Patent Compliance Group files qui tam action against Activision (Patent Arcade) Google - Inside Google’s first patent trial: Function Media, L.L.C. v. [read post]
2 Nov 2011, 4:00 am by Terry Hart
The Supreme Court issued its decision in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. [read post]