Search for: "State v. Louis D." Results 501 - 520 of 822
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Jan 2017, 4:27 am by Edith Roberts
” At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Ilya Shapiro and Devin Watkins discuss Buehler v. [read post]
22 Sep 2013, 6:59 pm by Gilles Cuniberti
Scientific Committee : Rafael ARENAS GARCÍA, Catedrático, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, España – Louis D’AVOUT, Professeur de droit, Université Panthéon-Assas Paris II, France – Jean-Sylvestre BERGÉ, Professeur de droit, Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3, France – Christine BIDAUD-GARON, Maître de conférences HDR, Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3, France –  Blandine de… [read post]
26 Feb 2020, 5:56 am
Last but not least, Part V, “Trademarks, Certification Marks and Standards” starts with Chapter 12 “Trademarks, Certification Marks and Technical Standards” authored by Jorge L. [read post]
25 Sep 2009, 7:23 pm
(Public Knowledge) Federal courts now offer hearings online as MP3 files (Ars Technica)   US General – Decisions 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rules former employee who took company data with him for his own business did not violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act: LVRC Holdings v Brekka (Ars Technica)     US Patents - Decisions CAFC affirms finding of patent infringement but strikes down $511 million damages award in dispute between Microsoft and… [read post]
25 Jun 2009, 4:29 am
Dec. 4, 2008); Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St Louis v. [read post]
16 May 2011, 1:10 am by Marie Louise
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton (Patents Post Grant Blog) Lux – Similar products sold by unrelated defendants not warrant joinder in patent cases: Rude d/b/a ABT Sys., LLC v. [read post]
29 Jun 2009, 1:00 am
: L’Oréal v Bellure (IPKat) Is the ruling in L’Oréal v Bellure against the law? [read post]
6 May 2022, 6:10 am by Noah J. Phillips
” Recognizing that the Sherman Act could be read to bar all contracts, federal courts for over a century have interpreted the 1890 antitrust law only to apply to “unreasonable” restraints of trade.[7] The Supreme Court first adopted this concept in its landmark 1911 decision in Standard Oil, upholding the lower court’s dissolution of John D. [read post]