Justia Blawg Search - Law Blogs, Lawyer Blogs, Legal Blogs Directory & Search Engine

Federal Circuit Addresses Whether Anticipating Prior Art Reference is ‘By Another’ as Described in 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)

15 Feb 2019, 5:15 am by Dustin Weeks

See Duncan Parking Techs. v. [read post]

IPWatchdog.com | Patent Copyright Trademark - http://www.ipwatchdog.com

Messaging patent still invalid - Court of Appeal upholds Arnold J

31 Dec 2013, 8:20 am

In December 2012, just before Christmas, and just before this Kat rejoined the blogging team, Arnold J handed down the decision Microsoft Corp v Motorola Mobility LLC [2012] EWHC 3677 (Pat) (21 December 2012). [read post]

IPKat - http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/

"Greenhouse Talks 'He Said, She Said' Journalism"

19 Nov 2015, 1:45 pm

" William E. [read post]

How Appealing - http://howappealing.abovethelaw.com

Remand to State Court on Regular Use Exclusion Issue Denied

6 Dec 2021, 5:00 am

In the case of Dayton v. [read post]

Tort Talk - http://www.torttalk.com/

Summary 2013 WY 51

30 Apr 2013, 8:17 am by WSLL

Remanded.Case Name: JAMES E. [read post]

Law Library Letter - http://wyolawlibrary.blogspot.com/

It Is Still Possible to Have a Case Dismissed for Inactivity (Judgment Non Pros) - Part II

23 Jun 2011, 6:39 am by Daniel E. Cummins

April 20, 2011 Nealon, J.). [read post]

Tort Talk - http://www.torttalk.com/

State of Utah v. Malloy – Felony DUI Defense in Utah

25 Jan 2021, 9:36 am by Arnold Wadsworth Coggins

Att‘y, Salt Lake City, for appelleeAttorneys: Andrea J. [read post]

Arnold & Wadsworth Blog - http://arnoldwadsworth.com/blog/

"In the end, the [School] District’s case hinges on the need to generate conflict between an individual’s rights under the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses and its own Establishment Clause duties..."

27 Jun 2022, 8:12 am

See, e. g., Lynch v. [read post]

Althouse - https://althouse.blogspot.com

Arnold J's latest judgment flags down the iconic (but not distinctive) London black cab

9 Feb 2016, 6:07 am

This point could be inferred from the reasoning of the Advocate General and the CJEU in Case C-205/13 Hauck GmbH & Co KG v Stokke A/S, which indicated that an important purpose of Article 3(1)(e)(iii) of the Trade Marks Directive was to prevent the use of indefinite trade marks protection to extend the time-limited protection of other intellectual property rights. [read post]

IPKat - http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/

Uued leiutised: ohutusvahend, hambahari, pildiraam, maanteerobot, seep, ehitis, kaksikrootormootor, jt

27 Jul 2009, 1:01 am by Mikk Putk

Avaldatud on järgmised uued patenditaotlused. [read post]

IPEstonia - http://ipestonia.wordpress.com

Lewis v. Clarke, Docket 15-1500

20 Jun 2017, 12:59 pm

Clarke, Docket 15-1500, J. [read post]

Frederic Borel - http://fredericborel.blogspot.ch/

Preso cautelarmente, advogado obtém direito a prisão domiciliar

6 Sep 2011, 5:09 am

O ministro do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) Celso de Mello superou os obstáculos da Súmula 691 da Suprema Corte e concedeu liminar ao advogado P.R.P., de Botucatu (SP), para que cumpra prisão cautelar em casa, já que o estabelecimento prisional a que estava recolhido não dispõe de sala de Estado-Maior, assegurada aos advogados pela Lei 8.906/94 (Estatuto da Advocacia), em seu artigo 7º, inciso V, parte final. [read post]

Supremo Tribunal Federal - http://www.stf.jus.br/portal/cms/listarNoticiaStfDia.asp

Plaintiff's claim that the termination her employment violated Labor Law §201-d(2)(c), which bars an employer from discharging an employee because of the employee's legal recreational activities outside work hours, rejected

11 Jun 2024, 5:00 am by Public Employment Law Press

Herbst and Benjamin J. [read post]

New York Public Personnel Law - https://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/

Plaintiff's claim that the termination her employment violated Labor Law §201-d(2)(c), which bars an employer from discharging an employee because of the employee's legal recreational activities outside work hours, rejected

11 Jun 2024, 5:00 am by Public Employment Law Press

Herbst and Benjamin J. [read post]

New York Public Personnel Law - https://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/

By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court holds that a federal prisoner who has already filed (and exhausted) a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 can’t file another postconviction motion to raise a claim of legal innocence based on an intervening statutory-interpretation-decision of the Supreme Court. Section 2255(h) bars second or successive 2255 motions based on non-constitutional claims; and the “saving clause” of § 2255(e) doesn’t authorize a petition for a “writ of habeas corpus,” under § 2241, for claims barred by § 2255(h). Jones v. Hendrix, Sup. Ct. 21-857, __U.S.. __ (June 22, 2023).

27 Jun 2023, 12:31 pm by Darrell Fields

Thomas, J. [read post]