Search for: "Bar Medical Holdings II LLC" Results 21 - 40 of 90
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Dec 2014, 5:00 am
  We’re celebrating the new year in our usual style, with our annual top ten best prescription medical product liability litigation decisions of 2014. [read post]
29 Jun 2023, 3:33 pm by John Elwood
  The Supreme Court announced that it would hold its “mop up” conference for October Term 2022 on Thursday, after completing the day’s opinion announcements. [read post]
19 Nov 2009, 10:51 am by Beck/Herrmann
Mass tort litigation followed an FDA Class II recall (It seems like every recall of a drug or medical device turns into a mass tort these days, doesn't it?) [read post]
GoodRX Holdings, Inc., Criteo Corp., Meta Platforms, Inc., and Google LLC,  plaintiffs filed suit against a number of defendants in the Northern District of California asserting claims under CIPA, the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (“CMIA”), California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), and common law invasion of privacy claims. [read post]
23 Sep 2009, 1:02 pm
ACORN workers Tonja Thompson and Shera Williams gave such advice to O'Keefe and Giles, as the Borat-esque pair secretly videotaped their conversation; here's Part I and Part II, and a transcript. [read post]
20 Aug 2008, 10:31 pm
Timothy Landis, O.D., brought suit against Pinnacle Eye Care, LLC, dba VisionFirst, John Schmitt, Louisville Optometric Centers III, Inc., successor to Louisville Optometric Centers II, Inc., and Rod Rallo (collectively "Defendants"), alleging employment discrimination based on his military service and his age. [read post]
28 Jan 2016, 8:13 am
”  Id. at 11.The Chief Justice’s 2015 Report was among the authorities cited in Kissing Camels Surgery Center, LLC v. [read post]
16 Jun 2015, 11:24 am by John Ehrett
Vederi, LLC 14-448Issue: Whether, when an applicant for a patent amends a claim to overcome the Patent and Trademark Office’s earlier disallowance of the claim, a court should (i) presume that the amendment narrowed the claim and strictly construe the amended claim language against the applicant, as this Court has held; or (ii) presume that the claim scope remained the same and require that any narrowing be clear and unmistakable, as the Federal Circuit has held. [read post]
31 Jan 2012, 5:46 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
The Court agreed, holding that the "relevant date" for purposes of the 300-day time bar is the "date of notice" of the new charges. [read post]