Search for: "English v. English"
Results 5021 - 5040
of 11,200
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Dec 2009, 2:29 am
Standard Paint Co. v. [read post]
27 Nov 2017, 4:03 am
The first is Oil States Energy Services v. [read post]
21 Dec 2010, 1:59 am
The Panel in Apple Inc. v. [read post]
5 Feb 2010, 2:21 am
Le Hara v. [read post]
1 Jul 2015, 6:06 am
I covered the decision in Plain English for this blog; commentary comes from Sean Young at ACSblog. [read post]
24 Mar 2013, 9:01 pm
In its February 20, 2013 decision in Cioffi-Petrakis v. [read post]
20 Sep 2007, 10:11 am
Nay v. [read post]
28 Mar 2012, 4:09 am
Tugendhat J refused to make such a determination (Cairns v Modi [2010] EWHC 2859 (QB)). [read post]
19 Apr 2017, 4:05 pm
Although the Court declined to express “a concluded view” on the application in English law of the rule in MGN v UK, it is apparent that it [read post]
24 Jan 2013, 4:45 pm
Even since McCann v. [read post]
24 Jan 2013, 4:45 pm
Even since McCann v. [read post]
26 Apr 2017, 6:24 am
Mazer v Stein, 347 US 201, 214 (1954) concerns the protection of lamps. [read post]
19 Dec 2013, 4:54 pm
CommentAlthough this decision may appear harsh given that the elements of Claim 7 were disclosed in the US application, the AmeriKat questions whether it is correct to characterize this decision as\indicative of an increasingly strict treatment of priority in the English courts. [read post]
2 Dec 2019, 12:23 am
Part of this portfolio is EP 1 841 268 B2, regarding the "access of a mobile station to a random access channel in dependence of its user class" ("EP268"), which, the French court explains, has been declared essential "by the English courts" (likely referring to the decision summarized here) to the UMTS/3G standard. [read post]
17 Feb 2019, 6:24 pm
(discussing the doctrine of foreign equivalents in the context of denying registration for geographically deceptively misdescriptive marks); see also Palm Bay Imports v. [read post]
9 Mar 2010, 7:02 am
In Apache v. [read post]
20 Mar 2013, 9:36 pm
In Opinion analysis: Justices reject publisher’s claims in gray-market copyright case, SCOTUSblog (Mar. 19, 2013, 12:22 PM), Ronald Mann of SCOTUSblog nicely summarizes the ruling, in Plain English: In Kirtsaeng v. [read post]
19 Nov 2011, 10:06 pm
The answer is unclear because of the traditional insistence in English law that failure of consideration must be “total”, although there are signs (disputed by some) in recent years that this requirement is honoured more in its breach than in its observance (see for example the Privy Council in Goss v Chilcott, the Court of Appeal in Rover v Cannon [1989] 1 WLR 912 and the High Court in Giedo van der Garde v Force India Formula One Team). [read post]
29 Oct 2018, 5:58 pm
The case of ABC v. [read post]
27 Mar 2013, 3:56 pm
The Supreme Court decided this week the case of Kirtsaeng v. [read post]
