Search for: "VS Holding Co" Results 461 - 480 of 1,041
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 May 2018, 5:00 am by Tamara Cofman Wittes
Editor's Note: Last week, Tamara Cofman Wittes co-chaired an international election observation mission in Lebanon for the National Democratic Institute (she serves on NDI’s board, but the views laid out below are her own, not NDI’s). [read post]
15 Jan 2015, 11:27 pm by Florian Mueller
While it's intellectually consistent, I disagree with the unbelievable discrepancy between Apple and WilmerHale's positions on SEP vs. non-SEP royalties. [read post]
27 Mar 2013, 12:27 pm by Gritsforbreakfast
Miller, which similarly relied on the third party doctrine to hold that people's bank records were the property of the bank and not subject to a warrant requirement. [read post]
7 Oct 2022, 8:02 am by OxFirst
These changes hold relevance to FRAND royalty rate determinations. [read post]
28 Apr 2021, 9:38 am by Andrew Koppelman
My Balkinization coblogger Mark Tushnet is unpersuaded by the argument of my book, Gay Rights vs. [read post]
8 May 2019, 8:49 am
While, at first glance, H.B. 694 appeared to provide some practicality and legal cost savings by allowing a number of non-attorney agents to file real estate tax complaints, the Supreme Court of Ohio in Dayton Supply & Tool Co., Inc. v. [read post]
28 Nov 2022, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
At the same time, the conversation has diversified: more voices, more perspectives, and more issues beyond the militia vs. [read post]
10 Apr 2012, 10:42 am by Justin P. Webb
Edmonson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982); United States v. [read post]
22 Feb 2010, 3:35 am
Denver Mattress Co., LLC (not precedential) (TTABlog) 9th Circuit: Judicial estoppel does not bar trade dress theory: Larin Corp. v. [read post]
22 Feb 2010, 3:35 am
Denver Mattress Co., LLC (not precedential) (TTABlog) 9th Circuit: Judicial estoppel does not bar trade dress theory: Larin Corp. v. [read post]
19 Feb 2011, 1:03 pm by Steve Vladeck
" That is, the difference was a deliberate choice to reflect the different standards and rules applicable to military trials vs. noncriminal detention under IHL. [read post]