Search for: "Gray v. Attorney General"
Results 421 - 440
of 513
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Feb 2010, 2:58 pm
Waterman has not been denied an incident report in general; was not denied one in Marshall v. [read post]
1 Feb 2010, 6:36 am
The Division has also hired a Managing Executive, in effect a chief operating officer, to manage information technology and oversee processes such as the distribution of Fair Funds to harmed investors, thus relieving staff attorneys of those responsibilities. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 3:51 am
(IP tango) ECJ sets aside partial refusal to grant CTM for ‘Vorsprung durch Technik’ (progress through technology): Audi AG v OHIM (Class 46) (IPKat) (The IP Factor) ECJ: Davidoff criteria for exhaustion apply also if goods were first marketed within the EEA: Makro Zelfbedieningsgroothandel CV and others v Diesel SpA (JIPLP) Time for a general grumble - General Court decisions missing images, no English version: G-Star Raw Denim kft v OHIM,… [read post]
19 Jan 2010, 8:00 am
In County of Dallas v. [read post]
11 Jan 2010, 4:08 pm
Inc. v Jersey Shore Chicken (GRAY On Claims)(Patently-O) CAFC: Refusing to stay preliminary relief pending appeal: Bushnell v. [read post]
4 Jan 2010, 12:43 pm
In State v. [read post]
4 Jan 2010, 6:25 am
It is based on an exception that is generally applied to the attorney-client privilege. [read post]
4 Jan 2010, 3:23 am
(Spicy IP) Sanctity of Section 21 Patents Act (Spicy IP) ‘Abandoning’ legal fogginess: A proposal for patent clarity – section 21 Patents Act (Spicy IP) Court gives nod to patent for image on flowers: Speaking Roses International Inc v Controller-General Of Patents and Anr. [read post]
19 Dec 2009, 4:03 pm
In Knowles v. [read post]
18 Dec 2009, 8:30 am
District Court for the Southern District of New York, U.S. v. [read post]
18 Dec 2009, 7:04 am
Supreme Court has invited the Solicitor General to file a brief in the Costco Wholesale Corporation v. [read post]
16 Dec 2009, 3:27 am
Weyhrauch v. [read post]
7 Dec 2009, 3:00 am
(GRAY on Claims) US Patents – Decisions CAFC: Blocking attorneys from simultaneously litigating and prosecuting patents: In re Deutsche Bank Trust (Patently-O) CAFC: Muscle ad in magazine invalidates patent: Iovate Health Science Inc v Bio-Engineered Supplements & Nutrition Inc (IPKat) (IP Directions) CAFC: If patent troll sends the letter, then a case-or-controversy ‘implicitly’ is asserted: HP v Acceleron (ISinIP) District Court S D… [read post]
25 Nov 2009, 3:00 am
Ltd v Underworks Ptd. [read post]
19 Nov 2009, 11:51 am
A ruling changing this “could be the Brown v. [read post]
8 Nov 2009, 7:44 pm
– Scopelight Ltd & Ors v Chief Constable of Northumbria and Federation Against Copyright Theft concerning police powers to retain seized property once decision not prosecute has been made (1709 Copyright Blog) Warner Bros says Harry Potter theme dinner infringes copyright (TorrentFreak) United States US General Did you know... section 337 settlement agreements must be approved by the ITC? [read post]
8 Nov 2009, 7:44 pm
' Court of Appeal rules... - Scopelight Ltd & Ors v Chief Constable of Northumbria and Federation Against Copyright Theft concerning police powers to retain seized property once decision not prosecute has been made (1709 Copyright Blog) Warner Bros says Harry Potter theme dinner infringes copyright (TorrentFreak) United States US General Did you know... section 337 settlement agreements must be approved by the ITC? [read post]
8 Nov 2009, 7:44 pm
– Scopelight Ltd & Ors v Chief Constable of Northumbria and Federation Against Copyright Theft concerning police powers to retain seized property once decision not prosecute has been made (1709 Copyright Blog) Warner Bros says Harry Potter theme dinner infringes copyright (TorrentFreak) United States US General Did you know... section 337 settlement agreements must be approved by the ITC? [read post]
6 Nov 2009, 1:20 pm
" (To read more about the case of Pottawattamie County v. [read post]
2 Nov 2009, 9:17 pm
If, as some of today's questions seem to indicate, the eventual decision from the Court in Jones v. [read post]
