Search for: "State v. Stein" Results 561 - 580 of 588
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Oct 2011, 1:31 pm by SteinMcewen, LLP
§102(a).[24] As an illustration of how this might represent a change, lets look at the facts in Motionless Keyboard Co. v. [read post]
1 Feb 2012, 9:15 am by SteinMcewen, LLP
McEwen* Introduction In the article included in the Stein McEwen Newsletter entitled Overview of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act: What Is The Practical Effect of First-to-File for Patent Applicants (October 2011), the novelty portions of the American Invents Act were explored. [read post]
25 Mar 2013, 1:09 am by Kevin LaCroix
The memo take great pains to emphasize that while the case was pending, the Second Circuit entered its opinion in Fait v. [read post]
29 Dec 2017, 7:34 am by Ben
In the UK in FAPL v BT [2017] Mr Justice Arnold concluded that the High Court has the jurisdiction to make an order against an access provider that would require the ISP to block access not to a website but rather streaming servers giving unauthorised access to copyright content - 'live' blocking. [read post]
7 Jul 2023, 1:03 pm by Ryan Goodman
United States Secret Service, USSS Timeline of Jan. 6, 2021 (FOIA release on Jun. 29, 2021) 9. [read post]
17 Jul 2007, 6:04 am
It stated that cooperation with the Government's investigation was a factor to be considered. [read post]
10 Jan 2011, 12:14 am by Kevin LaCroix
An example of a case in which courts have been persuaded to allow cases to proceed, notwithstanding these kinds of concerns, due to alleged gaps between what was been communicated externally and what allegedly was being said or done internally, is the Citigroup subprime-related securities lawsuit, where Southern District of New York Judge Sidney Stein noted in his November 9, 2010 opinion that the company allegedly was "taking significant steps internally to addr [read post]
9 Nov 2020, 12:18 pm by fjhinojosa
Gonzalez is cited in the following case: Kim Cramton v. [read post]
25 Jun 2023, 6:00 am by Lawrence Solum
The rule that disqualifies persons who are not 35 years of age from eligibility for the Presidency of the United States is quite hard or rigid. [read post]