Search for: "Meads v. Meads" Results 361 - 380 of 621
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Jan 2012, 2:49 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Even if this case does not qualify for an extension under the "good cause" exception (see Mead v Singleman, 24 AD3d 1142, 1144 [2005]), we find that it qualifies under the "interest of justice" category. [read post]
  This appears to be in contrast with the finding of Mr Justice Mellor in InterDigital v Lenovo that all past infringements should be paid for (even if that involves ignoring limitation periods), as well as comments made elsewhere by Mr Justice Meade that liability arises from first use of the patented technology. [read post]
27 Sep 2020, 7:08 am by Anastasiia Kyrylenko
| Richard Meade QC appointed to the High Court The Global Innovation Index (GII) 2020 has been released [read post]
4 Apr 2014, 8:51 am by WIMS
Appeals Court Environmental Decisions <> Supreme Court: McCutcheon v. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 12:42 pm
  Richard Meade QC (8 New Square), for Actavis, argued that the form of the cross-undertaking sought be his client was fair. [read post]
2 May 2019, 6:21 pm
Prebish Founders Award:               Gene ZenobiThe Rodney Thaxton “Against All Odds” Award:      Team of   U.S. v. [read post]
3 Nov 2023, 7:15 am by David Hemming (Bristows)
The starting point for Mellor J’s analysis was Kitchin LJ’s judgment in Regeneron v Genentech [2013] EWCA Civ 93. [read post]
10 Mar 2008, 3:48 pm
Jose Rodriguez gets stopped by some federal rangers in Lake Mead because it seems like he's drunk. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 5:15 pm by Administrator
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects) Meads v. [read post]
30 Sep 2015, 5:07 am by Mary Jane Wilmoth
Frank TamayoCase Number: 14-cv-05844 (United States District Court for the District of New Jersey)Case Filed: September 19, 2014Qualifying Judgment/Order: July 14, 2015 8/31/2015 11/29/2015 2015-77 SEC v. [read post]
4 Mar 2011, 8:00 am by randal shaheen
In its decision, the Ninth Circuit intricately traces the origin of its prior “identical or nearly identical” standard back to the Second Circuit’s decision in Mead Data Central, Inc. v. [read post]