Search for: "Peters v. The State of Texas" Results 481 - 500 of 629
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Aug 2008, 2:43 am
– discussion of Washington Post article on Ismed’s efforts to promote follow-on biologics approval pathway: (Patent Baristas), (Patent Docs), US: Congressional fact-finding on follow-on biologics: (Patent Docs), US: David v Monsanto: Biotechnology patent ‘exhaustion’ after Quanta, Supreme Court petition: (Hal Wegner), US: Ulysses Pharmaceuticals announces issuance of patent for novel class of ant [read post]
8 Jan 2021, 9:05 pm by Jasmine Wang
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court affirmed these regulations in Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. [read post]
23 Aug 2008, 1:23 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Thinktank Global week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com]   Highlights this week included: DRM for streaming music dies a quiet death: (Electronic Frontier Foundation), (Techdirt) CAFC decides Apotex and Impax infringed AstraZeneca’s Prilosec patents: (Law360), (Patent Prospector), (Patent Docs), (GenericsWeb), CAFC upholds lower court’s decision finding USPTO was within its rights to subject a Cooper patent to… [read post]
8 Aug 2011, 8:36 am by Pace Law School Library
Recent developments in Texas, United States, and international energy law. 6 Tex. [read post]
9 Jan 2009, 3:00 am
Inc v OnlineNIC, Inc (Technology & Marketing Law Blog) (The Trademark Blog) (Class 46) (Internet Cases)   US Trade Marks – Lawsuits and strategic steps Facebook - Facebook sues social networking aggregator Power.com for trade mark and copyright infringement, unlawful competition (Techdirt) (Out-Law) (Law360) Perez Hilton - Gossip website Perez Hilton sues PerezRevenge.com on trade mark and ‘frivolous’ DMCA cause (The Trademark Blog)  … [read post]
28 Nov 2008, 12:14 pm
: Peer International Corporation, Southern Music Publishing Co and Peermusic (UK) Ltd v Editoria Musical de Cuba (IP finance) Justice Kitchin upholds British Beer and Pub Association and British Hospitality Association appeal against decision of Copyright Tribunal on basis for calculation of fees which members have to pay for background music (IPKat) Contempt of court: the risks of false testimony in trade mark infringement proceedings: KJM Superbikes Ltd v Hinton (IPKat) (IPKat)… [read post]
31 Mar 2010, 3:42 am by Sam E. Antar
Originally, the investors sued InterOil, Mulacek, and Nikiski Partners, which is controlled by Mulacek (Todd Peters, et. al. v. [read post]
17 Jun 2022, 12:05 pm by Richard Hunt
The last gasp was an effort to stop the federal lawsuit because there was a parallel state court action based entirely on state law principles. [read post]
24 Aug 2019, 6:30 am by Dan Ernst
Citizens, 1919-1924Conveners: Kenneth Mack, Harvard Law School (kmack@law.harvard.edu), Laurie Wood, Florida State University (lmwood@fsu.edu), Jacqueline Briggs, University of Toronto - Centre for Criminology and Sociolegal Studies (jacq.briggs@mail.utoronto.ca), and John Wertheimer, Davidson College (jow [read post]
1 May 2009, 11:00 am
: In re Kubin and KSR International Co v Teleflex Inc (Patent Docs)   US Patents – Decisions CAFC: USPTO, Tafas & GSK request extension for reconsideration (IP Watchdog) CAFC: Patent on sex aid is obvious: Ritchie v Vast Resources (AKA Topco) (Patently-O) (Hal Wegner) CAFC: Assigning patent rights: Euclid Chemical v Vector Corrosion (Patently-O) (Hal Wegner) District Court E D Michigan: LEDdynamics wins summary judgment in LED tube patent suit… [read post]
13 Jun 2008, 3:40 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Thinktank Global week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included: ECJ rules trade mark holders cannot stop honest comparative advertising: O2 Holdings Limited and O2 (UK) Limited v Hutchinson 3G UK Limited: (Out-Law), (Catch Us If You Can!!!) [read post]
7 Jun 2018, 9:30 pm by Bobby Chen
.), Attorney General Jeff Sessions stated, “I have concluded that this is a rare case where the proper course is to forgo defense of Section 5000(A)(a)” but that the decision not to defend the constitutionality of the individual mandate “will not prevent the court in Texas v. [read post]