Search for: "Morris v. USA"
Results 401 - 420
of 486
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Nov 2016, 1:34 pm
On Tuesday, November 8, 2016, Election Day in the USA, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) will hear a patent case between AstraZeneca Canada Inc., et al. v. [read post]
23 Jun 2020, 1:01 pm
Philip Morris USA, Inc., 175 So. 3d 687, 694–95 (Fla. 2015) (stating that the statute of repose is an affirmative defense and thus the defendant has the burden of proof). [read post]
11 Jan 2017, 7:19 am
Santander Consumer USA, Inc. 16-349 Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in this case. [read post]
20 Dec 2010, 2:05 am
British American Tobacco defeats trade mark challenge in the Commonwealth Caribbean: Philip Morris Products S.A. v British American Tobacco (Brands) Limited (jiplp) Brazil Can we feed the hungry on statistics? [read post]
21 Jun 2013, 6:43 pm
Philip Morris USA, Inc., 449 F. [read post]
25 Jun 2014, 2:00 pm
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. [read post]
4 Mar 2011, 9:11 am
§ 1140, permits an employer to discharge an employee for making unsolicited internal complaints regarding violations of the statute.Certiorari stage documents:Opinion below (3d Cir.)Petition for certiorariBrief in oppositionAmicus brief of the American Association of Retired PersonsPetitioner's reply Title: Philip Morris USA Inc. v. [read post]
3 Apr 2014, 2:49 pm
The petitioners in the patent-infringement case Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Feb 2016, 11:32 am
Bard v. [read post]
26 Sep 2016, 8:02 pm
Morris, No. 16-300, Epic Sys. [read post]
7 Jul 2008, 5:00 am
With respect to plaintiff's demand for punitive damages, defendant specifically incorporates by reference any and all standards or limitations regarding the determination and enforceability of punitive damage awards that are set forth in Philip Morris USA v. [read post]
2 Oct 2017, 11:50 am
Morris and National Labor Relations Board v. [read post]
17 Jan 2017, 3:00 am
Phillip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2009), the Ninth Circuit held that a preemption question requires an inquiry into the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims against all defendants and an analysis of federal law. [read post]
13 Dec 2010, 4:30 am
Between the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Philip Morris USA v. [read post]
21 Jun 2009, 10:00 pm
(China Law Blog) Europe ECJ issues preliminary ruling in L’Oreal/Bellure regarding whether imitation perfumes were protected as permissible comparative advertising (Class 46) (IPKat) CFI: Proof of trade mark use: Harwin International LLC v OHIM, Cuadrado SA (IPKat) CFI: Last minute reprieve for passing off: Last Minute Network v OHIM-Last Minute Tour (IPKat) CFI dismisses Korsch’s appeal against refusal to grant CTM for ‘PharmaResearch’ due… [read post]
6 May 2010, 9:43 am
Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, et al., 2009 WL 73274 (N.D.Ill. 03/16/09). [read post]
2 Apr 2012, 4:13 pm
CLEVENS, Appellant, v. [read post]
9 Jul 2012, 2:24 pm
Philip Morris USA, Inc., 2011 WL 5119441 at *7 (6th Cir. 2011) (vacating order denying remand finding that trial court “went beyond the relevant inquiry—whether Plaintiffs have a colorable claim under Kentucky law—and instead inquired whether Plaintiffs had adequate evidentiary support for their claim, the traditional Rule 56 inquiry. [read post]
7 Jun 2011, 1:55 pm
See Cedeno, et al. v. [read post]
12 Dec 2021, 2:22 pm
Philip Morris USA, Inc., 449 F. [read post]
