Search for: "DIAMOND v. US "
Results 461 - 480
of 1,045
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Nov 2014, 9:25 pm
” Id. at 2359; see also id. at 2358 (explaining that the claims in Diamond v. [read post]
31 Oct 2014, 6:33 pm
See Winer v. [read post]
21 Oct 2014, 1:57 pm
In Carrera v. [read post]
13 Oct 2014, 1:12 pm
What can this story teach us about the use of brands in the viral networked world, wonders Neil? [read post]
13 Oct 2014, 11:36 am
Particularly interesting is that the Federal Court of Australia went out of their way to question the reasoning of the United States Supreme Court, and say that it is exceptionally difficult to reconcile Diamond v. [read post]
7 Oct 2014, 7:15 am
She wrote: [C]onsider the importance of the 1980 Supreme Court decision in Diamond v. [read post]
6 Oct 2014, 3:30 am
Both statutes use the plural term “holders. [read post]
3 Oct 2014, 8:25 am
EEOC v. [read post]
2 Oct 2014, 10:54 am
Rogers opened a nearby store called The Diamond Galleria by Rogers in 2013. [read post]
29 Sep 2014, 3:14 am
United Global Media Group, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Sep 2014, 7:08 am
" Prestige Jewelry International, Inc. v. [read post]
17 Sep 2014, 11:12 am
Kappos, and Diamond v. [read post]
15 Sep 2014, 10:46 am
Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981); Diamond v. [read post]
1 Sep 2014, 5:33 am
She detailed the jewelry, to include four diamond rings, diamond earrings, other rings, pearls, necklaces, gold items, and some costume jewelry. [read post]
29 Aug 2014, 7:30 am
Readers may still be looking forward to a ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Case C-661/13 Astellas Pharma Inc. v Polpharma SA Pharmaceutical Works, which was excitedly publicised by this Kat here and here on account of its potential for clarifying the scope of Bolar exemptions from patent infringement in favour of experimental use. [read post]
23 Aug 2014, 12:21 pm
The second suit is Hayuk v. [read post]
19 Aug 2014, 6:47 pm
As to the Due Process claim, the court noted that for an interest in a particular land-use benefit to qualify as a property interest for the purposes of the due process clause, a landowner must show a “clear entitlement” to that benefit. [read post]
9 Aug 2014, 10:18 am
Spencer v. [read post]
7 Aug 2014, 12:21 pm
If process claims are available, and relevant to consumers, in many more contexts than previously realized, among other things that has implications for the First Amendment treatment of advertising regulation—compare the claims made in the Nike v. [read post]
6 Aug 2014, 5:00 am
In American Meat v. [read post]
