Search for: "ARNOLD, II, V. STATE"
Results 21 - 40
of 265
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Dec 2016, 9:10 am
Subsequent to Sandoz I, the Court of Appeal upheld Arnold J’s judgment on validity in all material respects (“Warner-Lambert CA II”). [read post]
6 Mar 2017, 6:49 am
And the saga will continue – Arnold J’s judgment is under appeal [EDIT: decision expected by April 2017], and the decision by the General Court will most likely end up with the ECJ, given the stakes.To recap briefly – and I emphasize briefly – after the referreal to the ECJ which had answered the questions posed by Arnold J somewhat cryptically, Arnold J found that the shape of the KitKat bar was not barred from registration by by… [read post]
1 Oct 2021, 12:26 am
Arnold LJ is the preeminent patent law specialist on the Court of Appeal. [read post]
1 Oct 2021, 12:26 am
Arnold LJ is the preeminent patent law specialist on the Court of Appeal. [read post]
27 Jan 2012, 8:45 am
The AEP ruling leaves open the question of (i) whether states can sue under state law, and (ii) whether climate change victims can seek damages through the courts. [read post]
9 Aug 2022, 9:01 pm
The federal case is pending and being held in abeyance until any appeal of either state court decision becomes final.[2] On April 1, 2022, in Crest v. [read post]
21 Jan 2022, 3:51 am
As Arnold notes, there may be situations where the rights afforded to a performer under Part II of the CDPA 1988 still leave them vulnerable to situations where they are either unprotected or not properly rewarded for their contribution. [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 2:40 am
Yesterday, while the rest of the country was locked in the grip of the commercial vortex that is St Valentine’s Day, Mr Justice Arnold was handing down a sonnet of his own in the form of an epic judgment in DataCard Corporation v Eagle Technologies Limited [2011] EWHC 244 (Pat). [read post]
27 May 2014, 12:15 am
It's Shanks v Unilever Plc & Others [2014] EWHC 1647 (Pat), a Patents Court for England and Wales ruling of the indefatigable Mr Justice Arnold. [read post]
15 Feb 2024, 3:33 pm
Bose Corp. v. [read post]
15 May 2014, 11:40 am
On the principle of the matter, he stated at 111:In my judgment this reasoning [from Rohm & Haas] is persuasive, and it is supported by the subsequent judgment of the Court of Appeal in Virgin v Premium. [read post]
14 Oct 2010, 4:11 pm
page=152 (last visited Mar. 25, 2010).19 Id.20 See Arnold M. [read post]
12 Jul 2011, 2:58 am
KATNOTE: IF YOU ARE QUITE FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS THAT TRIGGERED THIS PIECE OF LITIGATION, THE QUESTIONS REFERRED FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING BY THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S OPINION, YOU CAN SKIP THIS POST AND MOVE STRAIGHT ON TO L’Oréal v eBay II: what the Court says It was only two short years ago that Mr Justice Arnold told us that he was referring a number of questions to the Court of… [read post]
27 Sep 2015, 1:13 am
The same happened in the aftermath of the Puffin/Penguin case [United Biscuits v Asda, noted here]. [read post]
20 Nov 2012, 10:04 am
That was the opening sentence of Mr Justice Arnold's judgment in Interflora, Inc. [read post]
1 Feb 2023, 12:00 am
Arnold LJ agreed, and was fortified in his opinion by a similar ruling from the US Supreme Court in WesternGeco v Ion Geophysical. [read post]
29 Oct 2008, 1:24 pm
Relying heavily on the case of Hollander v. [read post]
15 Apr 2019, 11:44 pm
Retromark Volume V: the last six months in trade marks1. [read post]
18 Feb 2009, 4:30 am
Arnold Padgett v. [read post]
24 Feb 2014, 8:35 am
Arnold, JudgeRepresenting Appellant: Office of the State Public Defender: Diane Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. [read post]
