Search for: "United States v. Arthur Andersen & Co."
Results 21 - 31
of 31
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Jun 2018, 7:06 pm
The arbitrator agreed with Rain & Hail that Jody James did not "timely present[] notice of its claim in accordance with the provisions of the crop insurance policy" and, further, "did not state a presentable loss" because crops from performing and non-performing farm units were commingled. [read post]
14 Jan 2010, 10:01 pm
United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935). [read post]
21 May 2011, 10:45 pm
" Arthur Andersen LLP v. [read post]
21 Jun 2009, 10:00 pm
(ITC 337 Law Blog) Academic perspectives on issues raised in Bilski case (IP Osgoode) Star Scientific teaches a valuable lesson to all IP share investors (IAM) US Patents – Decisions CAFC: Appealing BPAI rejections to the Federal Circuit: In re Baggett (nonprecedential) (Patently-O) CAFC: Preliminary injunctions and obviousness in design patent law: Titan Tire Corp v Case New Holland, Inc (Patently-O) District Court N D Illinois: Post-filing assignment cannot create standing:… [read post]
30 Oct 2013, 8:00 am
Trainmen v. [read post]
2 Nov 2010, 9:00 am
McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Co., 79 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 1996); Wrighten v. [read post]
28 Mar 2008, 6:00 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Thinktank Global week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included:Forbes interview with M Meurer (co author of ‘Patent Failure’): (Patent Prospector), (IPBiz), (IPBiz), (IPBiz), (IAM), (Technological Innovation and Intellectual Property), (Patent Prospector),Rambus – Rambus stock soars following jury’s dismissal of antitrust and fraud charges from Hynix, Micron, and Nanya… [read post]
18 May 2009, 5:24 am
’ (China Law Blog) Europe ECJ finds similar marks on wine and glasses not likely to cause confusion: Waterford Wedgewood plc v Assembled Investments (Proprietary) Ltd, OHIM (Class 46) (IPKat) AG Colomer opines in Maple leaf trade mark battle: joined cases American Clothing Associates SA v OHIM and OHIM v American Clothing Associates SA (IPKat) (Excess Copyright) CFI: Restitutio and time limits: how does the law stand now for CTMs? [read post]
16 Aug 2008, 2:43 am
– discussion of Washington Post article on Ismed’s efforts to promote follow-on biologics approval pathway: (Patent Baristas), (Patent Docs), US: Congressional fact-finding on follow-on biologics: (Patent Docs), US: David v Monsanto: Biotechnology patent ‘exhaustion’ after Quanta, Supreme Court petition: (Hal Wegner), US: Ulysses Pharmaceuticals announces issuance of patent for novel class of ant [read post]
29 Jan 2018, 11:28 pm
Some 40 or so years later, Chairman Clayton’s regeneration of Judge Sporkin’s gatekeeper liability lays the regulatory foundation for a successful and vast SEC ICO assault, which will leave some ICO lawyers looking over their shoulders, and others perhaps dashing for cover. 1970s: SEC v. [read post]
22 Feb 2016, 4:36 pm
However, interest in purchasing this type of insurance did not develop until 1939, when in New York Dock Co. v. [read post]
