Search for: "Defendant Does 1-9"
Results 21 - 40
of 8,848
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Sep 2013, 6:42 am
Published: 9/9/2013 11:48 AM [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 8:23 am
The now searchable list of defendants in an infringement action brought by Burberry (SDNY 1:12-cv-00479-TPG) (complaint not on ECF) John Doe 1 QIAO RENFENG A/KA QIU YANYANG AIKIA LIN RUI A/K/A CHEN DERONG A/K/ A XUE BINXUAN A/K/A YONGBO LI A/KIA XIAO JINGJING A/KIA JIANG AI A/KIA XUZHEYE XUZHEYE A/KIA XU ZHEYE A/KIA ZHOUMINMIN AIKIA ZHAO LI AIKIA ZHENG LINTIAN A/K/A LINTIAN ZHENG AIKIA John Doe 2 A/K/A LIUQING WU A/K/A WU LIUQI G John Doe 3… [read post]
3 Feb 2013, 9:22 am
” Id.at *9. [read post]
24 Apr 2012, 7:20 am
In Rule 9-1(5)(a), the rule specifically provides for disbursements, while Rule 9-1(5)(b) does not. [read post]
12 Feb 2018, 7:18 am
Activision Blizzard, Inc., 1-16-cv-00453 (DED February 9, 2018, Order) (Andrews, USDJ) [read post]
5 Jan 2024, 9:46 am
Background The plaintiff filed her complaint on August 1, 2022. [read post]
12 May 2009, 7:49 pm
., General Medical Center, a Corporation, and Does 1 through 250, inclusive, Defendants. [read post]
19 Feb 2015, 2:37 pm
Infringement under Article 9(1)(a) [“double identity”: same mark, same goods and/or services]Here, Arnold J said, the burden is on the defendant to show the use does not affect or is not liable to affect the functions of the trade mark, and the DHL dictum makes sense. [read post]
8 Jan 2014, 9:30 am
Plaintiff Malibu Media, LLC, filed a copyright infringement action against Defendant John Doe. [read post]
14 Sep 2015, 8:51 am
Specifically, the plaintiff argues that the court improperly determined that (1) governmental immunity protected the defendants from liability, (2) General Statutes § 8-11 does not allow a private cause of action against a zoning board of appeals, and (3) General Statutes § 7-465 does not provide for indemnification to the plaintiff in connection with a zoning appeal. [read post]
18 May 2007, 8:33 am
Also on July 13, the defendant in that case entered guilty pleas and sentencing was deferred to September 9. [read post]
2 Jul 2013, 8:50 am
This case considered whether judicial participation in plea negotiation, in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1), automatically requires the vacating of a subsequent guilty plea--regardless of whether the violation prejudiced the defendant.By a vote of 9-0 the Court held, per an opinion by Justice Ginsburg, judicial participation in violation of Rule 11(c)(1) does not require that a defendant’s guilty plea be vacated if the… [read post]
2 Jul 2013, 8:50 am
This case considered whether judicial participation in plea negotiation, in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1), automatically requires the vacating of a subsequent guilty plea--regardless of whether the violation prejudiced the defendant.By a vote of 9-0 the Court held, per an opinion by Justice Ginsburg, judicial participation in violation of Rule 11(c)(1) does not require that a defendant’s guilty plea be vacated if the… [read post]
13 Nov 2007, 10:06 am
Does 1-16, the case targeting students at the University of New Mexico, Magistrate Judge Garcia issued an order which required the RIAA to:--provide full sets of papers for each John Doe defendant, and--give the defendants 40 days in which to review the papers with their counsel, and, if so advised, to oppose discovery.September 9, 2007, Order, Requiring 40 days Notice and Full Sets of Papers for John Doe defendants** Document… [read post]
14 Apr 2015, 1:31 pm
§ 922(g)(9), prohibits firearm possession by a person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. [read post]
31 Jul 2007, 5:06 am
Jul 9, 2007)(N.D. [read post]
24 Sep 2015, 11:31 am
As such, JohnsonMatthey’s activities are protected by the safe harborof § 271(e)(1), and the district court erred by enteringjudgment that Johnson Matthey has induced infringementof the compound claims at issue.Link: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-1736.Opinion.9-21-2015.1.PDF [read post]
22 May 2009, 11:47 am
The grounds: that "the proposed Order (1) purports to grant the Court jurisdiction it does not have, and (2) unfairly and improperly prejudices [defendants]. [read post]
2 Feb 2016, 10:06 am
Gomez, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), at 1. [3] Id. at 26 (Roberts, J., dissenting). [4] Id. at 1. [5] Id. at 4. [6] Id. at 6-7. [7] Id. at 7-8. [8] Id. at 12. [9] Id. at 33 (Alito, J., dissenting). [10] Id. at 23 (Roberts, J., dissenting). [11] Id. at 31 (Roberts, J., dissenting). [read post]
4 May 2009, 7:26 am
§1028A(a)(1) (emphasis added). [read post]
