Search for: "English v. English"
Results 3961 - 3980
of 11,196
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Jul 2017, 1:11 am
One further step in that direction was taken by the Canadian Supreme Court on 30 June 2017, when it banished the so-called ‘Promise Doctrine’ of inutility from Canadian patent law: AstraZeneca Canada Inc v Apotex Inc 2017 SCC 36. [read post]
8 Jul 2017, 4:07 am
Moscati on developments in United States v. [read post]
7 Jul 2017, 9:17 am
True to form, this morning I came into work to an article on, and a copy of the decision by, the Second Circuit yesterday in the long running pension class action case, Osberg v. [read post]
7 Jul 2017, 5:00 am
Sinclair v. [read post]
6 Jul 2017, 10:44 am
Board of Education of Ewing, Lyng v. [read post]
6 Jul 2017, 8:50 am
Under English law, Zambrano carers are not “habitually resident” in the UK and are thereby disqualified from receiving income-related benefits, including income support, income based jobseekers’ allowance, income-related employment and support allowance, state pension credit, housing benefit, council tax benefit, child benefit and child tax credit. [read post]
5 Jul 2017, 5:42 am
Toronto Elementary Catholic Teachers / Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association v. [read post]
4 Jul 2017, 7:03 am
See the Supreme Court decision on this, posted by Rosalind English, which brought the whole matter to light. [read post]
3 Jul 2017, 8:46 am
The ProfProf Wim Alberts contacted our resident rhino to post this piece in which he traverses the African savannah, English countryside and Swedish fjords to establish the true meaning of trade mark infringement, in a beemer. [read post]
2 Jul 2017, 12:52 am
The Court stated that although the Promise Doctrine is viewed as uniquely Canadian, it has its roots in English law in Hatmaker v Joseph ((1919) 36 PRC 231) and Re Alsop's Patent ((1907) 24 RPC 733 - "false suggestion or representation") where, the now extinct doctrine the Court referred to as the "False Promise Doctrine" derived. [read post]
1 Jul 2017, 4:07 pm
Reliance was placed on the English case of Cartier International AG v. [read post]
1 Jul 2017, 12:00 pm
Most notably, in Hoyt v. [read post]
1 Jul 2017, 9:39 am
The Court stated that although the Promise Doctrine is viewed as uniquely Canadian, it has its roots in English law in Hatmaker v Joseph ((1919) 36 PRC 231) and Re Alsop's Patent ((1907) 24 RPC 733 - "false suggestion or representation") where, the now extinct doctrine the Court referred to as the "False Promise Doctrine" derived. [read post]
1 Jul 2017, 9:14 am
Papadopoulos v. [read post]
1 Jul 2017, 9:14 am
Papadopoulos v. [read post]
29 Jun 2017, 10:00 pm
(v) If any evidence of fact is to be introduced, the court will need to be satisfied of its relevance. [read post]
29 Jun 2017, 10:00 pm
(v) If any evidence of fact is to be introduced, the court will need to be satisfied of its relevance. [read post]
29 Jun 2017, 3:22 am
In 1878, the Court ruled in Wilkerson v. [read post]
28 Jun 2017, 3:11 pm
See generally, Morris v. [read post]
