Search for: "Doe, Inc." Results 3361 - 3380 of 51,392
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Jul 2014, 12:00 am by David Jensen
The award is basically a grant because it does not have to be repaid unless a product derived from the research reaches certain income thresholds.But now StemCells, Inc., has damaged its relationship, probably irreparably, with the agency. [read post]
18 Mar 2010, 11:12 am by Marx Sterbcow
GMAC Mortgage Group, Inc., 417 F.3d 384, 385 (3d Cir. 2005) (finding that “RESPA does not provide a cause of action for overcharges”); Kruse, 383 F.3d at 56 (“We conclude that section 8(b) clearly and unambiguously does not extend to overcharges. [read post]
11 Nov 2012, 9:05 pm by Charles Bieneman
Cir. 2008), when it recently held in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v, Limelight Networks, Inc., that induced patent infringement does not require a single actor. [read post]
7 Jul 2011, 6:25 am by Don Cruse
Legacy of Life, Inc., No. 11-0519 DB The Fifth Circuit has sent a certified question to the Texas Supreme Court asking it, once again, to construe an insurance policy under Texas law. [read post]
6 Jun 2018, 6:00 am by Jason C. Gavejian and Maya Atrakchi
Supreme Court recently granted a petition for review of a data breach lawsuit addressing the issue of whether parties can pursue a class arbitration when the language in the arbitration agreement does not explicitly allow for such, Lamps Plus, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Jun 2018, 6:00 am by Jason C. Gavejian and Maya Atrakchi
Supreme Court recently granted a petition for review of a data breach lawsuit addressing the issue of whether parties can pursue a class arbitration when the language in the arbitration agreement does not explicitly allow for such, Lamps Plus, Inc. v. [read post]
1 May 2019, 5:00 am by Jason C. Gavejian and Maya Atrakchi
Supreme Court granted a petition for review of a data breach lawsuit addressing the issue of whether parties can pursue class arbitration when the language in the arbitration agreement does not explicitly allow for such, Lamps Plus, Inc. v. [read post]