Search for: "Doe VI"
Results 3481 - 3500
of 5,623
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Jun 2013, 1:53 pm
Patent No. 8,419,307) · Count VI for Patent Infringement (Contributory Infringement of U.S. [read post]
12 Jun 2013, 6:31 am
VI Unknown Named Agents (emphasis added). [read post]
7 Jun 2013, 7:46 am
Now there are some fields where they are the coin of the realm (my wonderful colleague who does classics and law at Harvard is a good example of someone who simply had to write a book for her tenure and career prospects given her field). [read post]
6 Jun 2013, 6:38 pm
VI. [read post]
5 Jun 2013, 5:42 am
Tony was always right, “it” does want to be funnier. [read post]
4 Jun 2013, 8:04 am
Thus, it does not have the requisite degree of distinctiveness to support a finding of dilution, at least vis-à-vis respondent’s use of the term as part of the mark SPAM ARREST for computer software designed to eliminate unsolicited commercial email. . . . [read post]
4 Jun 2013, 6:27 am
Currently, Rule 2014 does not limit the extent of disclosure of a professional’s connections with: (i) the debtor; (ii) any creditors of the debtor; (iii) other parties in interest; (iv) attorneys of the debtor, creditors, and parties in interest; (v) accountants for the debtor, creditors, and parties in interest; and (vi) the United States Trustee and persons employed by the U.S. [read post]
31 May 2013, 6:33 pm
Secular Liberalism, the Theocratic State and the Political Consequences of Privileging Religion for Multi-Religious States Larry Catá Backer[1]Abstract: Religion has returned to the secular state; does crisis result? [read post]
30 May 2013, 6:45 am
Moreover, because of the lack of any direct Delaware Supreme Court precedent on the subject to date, there has been continuing uncertainty over the years whether the use of both mechanisms in a controller take-private does, in fact, alter the standard of judicial review and result in application of the business judgment rule. [read post]
28 May 2013, 9:53 am
It's hard to think of a sentence that would better describe Apple's situation vis-à-vis Samsung.Closely related to the previous item is the holding that "mere damages will not compensate for a competitor’s increasing share of the market, a market which [the patentee] competes in, and a market that [the patentee] has in part created with its investment in patented technology".If you've read my previous commentary on this appeal (such as 1 and 2), then you know that one… [read post]
28 May 2013, 1:45 am
The IPKat does some fieldresearch into flowers ...Connoisseurs of long judgments will know that Interflora Inc and Interflora British Unit v Marks and Spencer Plc and Flowers Direct Online Limited [2013] EWHC 1291 (Ch) was decided last Monday, 21 May 2013, in the Chancery Division, High Court of Justice, England and Wales, by (who else?) [read post]
27 May 2013, 9:01 pm
When a child is born to a woman who is married to another woman, does the child have two legal parents at birth? [read post]
25 May 2013, 11:50 am
The Virgin Islands Code does not specifically reference "family trusts", but such trusts are generally deemed to be a form of an express trust, revocable in nature, referred to as an inter vivos or living trust." [read post]
24 May 2013, 6:20 pm
That is, the PGP does not allow participants to be anonymous vis-à-vis the project directors; indeed, they insist on confirming participants’ identity and want to be sure, for obvious reasons, that participants provide their own samples, and not those of others (see § 4.2 of the consent document). [read post]
24 May 2013, 8:35 am
But note that Justice Scalia's glib little paragraph does not set forth Caleb's or any other actual reasoning. [read post]
24 May 2013, 8:27 am
Huntington Christian Believing & Living vi. 105 Every moral climate here is more or less tainted, and grows pestilential if we linger in it too long.... 2004 H. [read post]
23 May 2013, 8:17 am
[Because of the bizarre limits on the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction vis-a-vis CAAF, there was no obvious way to seek appellate, rather than collateral, review.] [read post]
20 May 2013, 1:57 pm
VI. [read post]
19 May 2013, 5:01 pm
According to the impugned decision the ED was, however, of the opinion that a request for a hearing could not be considered to be a request for OPs pursuant to A 116 and that [the applicant] was not legally entitled to an oral hearing under the EPC […].[2.3] In this context, however, the impugned decision does not indicate anywhere how the term “hearing” would have to be concretely interpreted, i.e. what the ED understood the request for a hearing to actually mean. [read post]
16 May 2013, 8:00 am
Symczyk, the Supreme Court had the chance to decide a case which actually would help define the true parameters of the mootness doctrine, vis a vis cases where the plaintiff claims finite (and typically relatively small) individual damages, but seeks to represent a putative class. [read post]
