Search for: "State v. Register" Results 3801 - 3820 of 13,696
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Feb 2019, 2:13 am
| The IP term (thus far) of the millennium: the curious story of the adoption of "patent troll" and "internet trolling" | No pain, no gain: Plausibility in Warner-Lambert v Actavis | Testing the boundaries of subjectivity: Infringement of Swiss-type claims in Warner-Lambert v Actavis | Is SPINNING generic? [read post]
The court would easily strike down a law that allows Democrats (or Republicans) to register to vote on election day but requires Republicans (or Democrats) to register 20 days before an election. [read post]
6 Feb 2019, 6:12 am
| The IP term (thus far) of the millennium: the curious story of the adoption of "patent troll" and "internet trolling" | No pain, no gain: Plausibility in Warner-Lambert v Actavis | Testing the boundaries of subjectivity: Infringement of Swiss-type claims in Warner-Lambert v Actavis | Is SPINNING generic? [read post]
6 Feb 2019, 12:32 am by Brian Craig
Case date:15 January 2019 Case number: No. 17-16815 Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law. [read post]
4 Feb 2019, 10:06 am
Now, presumably as part of a 2-for-1 deal, the General Court has refused DeepMind’s application to register an EUTM for STREAMS (Case T-97/18 DeepMind Technologies Ltd v EUIPO).In February 2016, Google Inc. filed an application (later assigned to DeepMind) to register STREAMS, for the following goods and services:Class 9: “Computer software for accessing and viewing patient medical information”; Class 42: “Application service provider (ASP)… [read post]
1 Feb 2019, 7:57 am by Eugene Volokh
The Assembly recalls that the European Court of Human Rights has already stated in Refah Partisi (The Welfare Party) and others v. [read post]
1 Feb 2019, 7:11 am
DuSablon, Defendant/ Appellant (Opinion, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 18-2809 / February 6, 2019)http://brokeandbroker.com/PDF/JCB7Cir.pdf Although state-chartered Jackson County Bank ("JCB") was not a registered broker-dealer, it offered brokerage services to its customers via a third-party agreement with INVEST Financial Corporation. [read post]