Search for: "Active Concrete, Inc." Results 481 - 500 of 555
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Feb 2010, 11:58 pm
In August 2008 Mr Justice Kitchin delivered a mega-judgment in Eli Lilly & Co v Human Genome Sciences Inc, [2008] EWHC 1903 (Pat) on patent validity (noted by the IPKat here). [read post]
13 Jan 2010, 2:21 am by gmlevine
Available-Domain-Names.com, d/b/a Intellectual-Assets.com, Inc., D2000-0120 (WIPO April 13, 2000) and EAuto, L.L.C. v. [read post]
13 Dec 2009, 1:04 am
Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1584 n.6 (Fed. [read post]
17 Nov 2009, 4:02 pm
 In the Order, ALJ Luckern denied a motion filed by Respondents India Imports, Inc., d/b/a/ International Wholesales Club and Washington Food and Supply of D.C., Inc., d/b/a Washington Cash & Carry (collectively, “Respondents”) to order Complainants Red Bull GmbH and Red Bull North America, Inc. [read post]
17 Nov 2009, 6:58 am by WIMS
The Copenhagen Agreement should be concrete and binding on countries committing to reach targets, to undertake actions, and to provide agreed finance. [read post]
16 Nov 2009, 7:37 am by WIMS
Waste Information & Management Services, Inc. [read post]
17 Oct 2009, 5:22 pm
  We continue to employ every technique we've ever used to suppress, avoid, deny, resolve, transform, or transcend conflict, including force (violent and non-violent such as injunctions subject of a Trial Warrior Blog post this week); thievery (the Trade Secrets Blog); shaming (which Scott Greenfield does to bloggers "looking for fights and dumb as dirt" and which Volokh suggests we do to health insurers); bullying (solutions to which appear at the Citizen Media Law… [read post]
24 Sep 2009, 3:16 pm
Swiss Valley, Inc., No. 138985, vacated the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission, reasoning that it had employed an improper legal framework when determining whether the plaintiff’s overall activities were work-related for purposes of receiving benefits. [read post]
14 Aug 2009, 9:50 am
The Appeals Court concluded, "Because neither Pollack nor Miller has demonstrated that they were concretely affected by the shooting activities they challenge, neither individual has standing to pursue this case. [read post]