Search for: "Weiss v. United States" Results 321 - 340 of 348
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
If the latter, then this may be contrasted with the approach taken by Pumfrey J in Abbott v Ranbaxy [2004] where he stated that had he not granted summary judgment on validity grounds, he would have granted a preliminary injunction. [read post]
20 Mar 2014, 9:01 pm by John Dean
  And given the very recent ruling in United States ex rel. [read post]
22 Sep 2010, 1:11 pm
The three sources of international law are stated and defined in the Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States (R3dFRLUS), Section 102. [read post]
29 Oct 2012, 10:39 am by Marie-Andree Weiss
Twitter introduced a “country-withheld content” policy last January, stating that: “[m]any countries, including the United States, have laws that may apply to Tweets and/or Twitter account content. [read post]
28 Apr 2011, 3:18 pm by Bexis
 At least the state of the art at the time of the plaintiff’s use applies – unknown and later discovered risks are irrelevant. [read post]
28 Nov 2017, 12:19 pm by Zuri Blackmon
For example, if you ask a state tax officer when were the assessments? [read post]
28 Dec 2015, 2:51 am by Ben
  A New York federal judge agreed to certify an interlocutory appeal by SiriusXM against the ruling that gave state copyright law protection to pre-1972 sound recordings. [read post]
6 Feb 2012, 5:08 am by Max Kennerly, Esq.
  The inventor-friendly principles that governed the original United States Patent Office back when Thomas Jefferson ran it (though he personally wasn’t too much a fan of patents) are still the law today, even though the scope of prior art in most industries has expanded far beyond the point where any patent examiner could reasonably review it, much less ensure an inventor in an ex parte proceeding fairly describes it. [read post]
29 Dec 2017, 7:34 am by Ben
But, asked Marie-Andree Weiss, is it right? [read post]
21 Dec 2009, 3:06 am
Vullo (Paul, Weiss LLP). [read post]
29 Dec 2009, 5:46 pm by smtaber
—EPA News Release, December 21, 2009 A southwest Missouri pet supply dealer has agreed to pay a $56,632 civil penalty to the United States to settle allegations that it violated the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) by repackaging, relabeling and selling an insecticide meant for use on cattle and hogs as a flea and tick treatment for dogs. [read post]
29 Dec 2009, 5:50 pm by admin
—EPA News Release, December 21, 2009 A southwest Missouri pet supply dealer has agreed to pay a $56,632 civil penalty to the United States to settle allegations that it violated the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) by repackaging, relabeling and selling an insecticide meant for use on cattle and hogs as a flea and tick treatment for dogs. [read post]