Search for: "T-UP v. Consumer Protection"
Results 4401 - 4420
of 4,766
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Jun 2009, 5:00 am
(IP finance) RIAA – Nesson seeks Supreme Court certiorari concerning rejection of bid to webcast proceedings in Joel Tenenbaum case (Excess Copyright) RIAA – Op Ed by RIAA General Counsel – Nesson more like P T Barnum than David (Ars Technica) RIAA – Jammie Thomas attorney requests all MediaSentry evidence barred in retrial (Ars Technica) (Ars Technica) RIAA – Last.fm, CBS respond to rumours of data shared with RIAA or music label (Ars… [read post]
5 Jun 2009, 3:49 am
District of Columbia v. [read post]
4 Jun 2009, 10:16 am
Polaroid Corp. v. [read post]
4 Jun 2009, 5:20 am
I haven't seen this issue come up, but logically the answer has to be no - it does not apply. [read post]
1 Jun 2009, 11:20 am
In Kirkpatrick v. [read post]
1 Jun 2009, 7:05 am
It may be hiding in plain sight in US patent database (IP Asset Maximizer Blog) Interview with Mike Drummond of Inventors Digest (IP Watchdog) US Patents – Decisions CAFC: Impact of merger/buyout on prior agreement to not challenge patent validity: Epistar v ITC (Patently-O) (ITC 337 Law Blog) CAFC affirms in part, reverses in part, vacates in part and remands Linear Technology Corporation v ITC (ITC 337 Law Blog) CAFC: Genetech & Volkswagon… [read post]
27 May 2009, 1:17 am
In State v. [read post]
26 May 2009, 11:34 am
At least one case, Specific Software Solutions, LLC v. [read post]
22 May 2009, 9:22 am
The Ninth Circuit just decided Barnes v. [read post]
19 May 2009, 6:14 pm
The Ninth Circuit recently decided Barnes v. [read post]
18 May 2009, 9:29 am
That is why it will probably be more productive to see what happens to the American Airlines v. [read post]
18 May 2009, 5:00 am
We saw the same mindset in Kasky v. [read post]
16 May 2009, 9:00 pm
Justice Ginsburg's opinion for the Court, however, approvingly quotes a long list of Court precedent in order to hold open a possible role for permissible gender-based decision making:Physical differences between men and women. . . are enduring: "[T]he two sexes are not fungible; a community made up exclusively of one [sex] is different from a community composed of both". . . . [read post]
16 May 2009, 9:03 am
The law should not protect education lenders as they pressure students to accrue exorbitant amounts of non-dischargeable debt, protect law schools as they over-state the return on investment in legal education, and then fail to protect consumers who fall prey to these practices. [read post]
13 May 2009, 3:49 am
A year ago, I wrote about the 8th District’s decision in Hayes v. [read post]
12 May 2009, 6:51 pm
Now at the Supreme Court is a case being heard on certiorari, Arkansas Carpenters Health and Welfare Fund, A.F. of L., et al. v. [read post]
12 May 2009, 12:20 pm
" It is clear to anyone who picks up a newspaper or watches the evening news that the country has been waiting for this "self-correction," spurred innovation, and enhanced consumer welfare. [read post]
12 May 2009, 10:27 am
Peter Mankowski: “Neues zum ‘Ausrichten’ unternehmerischer Tätigkeit unter Art. 15 Abs. 1 lit. c EuGVVO” - the English abstract reads as follows: “Targeted activity” in Art. 15 (1) lit. c Brussels I Regulation and in Art. 6 (1) lit. b Rome I Regulation aims at extending consumer protection. [read post]
8 May 2009, 10:00 am
: Warner Bros v V G Santosh (Spicy IP) Where do we go? [read post]
7 May 2009, 2:07 pm
Since section 112 only addresses the termination of service contracts, this amendment really isn't absolutely necessary, and this is especially so in light of Justice Paul Perel's decision in the case of PSCC No. 668 v. [read post]
