Search for: "Identification Devices v. United States"
Results 21 - 40
of 313
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Jan 2011, 6:39 am
United States v. [read post]
19 May 2014, 2:06 pm
In United States v. [read post]
7 Nov 2011, 6:43 am
With the Court set to hear arguments this week in two of the Term’s most anticipated cases – United States v. [read post]
2 Apr 2015, 8:10 am
In U.S. v. [read post]
21 Oct 2016, 12:56 pm
’ United States v. [read post]
27 Nov 2017, 10:00 am
Specifically, the court notes in United States v. [read post]
16 Feb 2007, 1:22 pm
United States v. [read post]
28 Jan 2014, 1:37 pm
United States v. [read post]
15 Apr 2017, 12:21 pm
`District courts are required to conduct evidentiary hearings only when a substantial claim is presented and there are disputed issues of material fact that will affect the outcome of the motion.' United States v. [read post]
22 Nov 2022, 4:05 am
As to actual confusion, since Shanghai has not exported any massage apparatus to the United States, "there has been no opportunity for actual, or potential, confusion to occur. [read post]
16 Sep 2014, 3:13 pm
More, “a patentee’s obligation to apportion damages only to the patented features does not end with the identification of the smallest salable unit if that unit still contains significant unpatented features. [read post]
11 Sep 2007, 10:20 pm
In Warshak v. [read post]
30 Jan 2018, 10:57 pm
A Ninth Circuit decision supports the CBP’s position, holding that “reasonable suspicion is not needed for customs officials to search a laptop or other electric device at the international border” (United States v. [read post]
19 Apr 2013, 8:51 am
Natasha Branam, a forensic scientist from the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation's Cyber Crime Unit, analyzed the hard drive of the computer. [read post]
4 Feb 2012, 2:07 pm
Now is the time to rectify the situation before schools are left with tremendous legal bills defending unconstitutional policies and tort judgments for negligence.Unlike China, the United States does not have a Microblog Identification Program that requires its online users to register with the government so it may track its citizens' online speech. [read post]
28 Jan 2012, 6:17 pm
In U.S. v. [read post]
14 Sep 2011, 9:33 am
The details appear below: * United States v. [read post]
15 Jul 2007, 9:37 am
United States v. [read post]
11 Dec 2017, 6:00 am
In the United States v. [read post]
26 Jan 2015, 7:22 am
Kriesel, supra(government's retention of the defendant's blood sample was `reasonable under the circumstances’ because the government needed the sample to ensure the accuracy of future DNA identifications).U.S. v. [read post]
