Search for: "ARNOLD, II, V. STATE"
Results 41 - 60
of 265
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 May 2015, 10:33 pm
After all, "holiday" is no more than a state of mind, surely. [read post]
5 Apr 2023, 5:18 am
Similarly, Hacon HHJ stated in Teva v Novartis [2022] EWHC 2847 (Pat): “It seems that there was little or no interaction between Novartis’ three experts during the preparation of their evidence. [read post]
6 Jul 2016, 4:04 am
"Kitchin LJ concluded that all threshold conditions were satisfied in this case.Principles and ... costsTurning then to the principles to be applied in considering whether to make a website blocking order, namely the relief must: (i) be necessary; (ii) be effective; (iii) be dissuasive; (iv) not be unnecessarily complicated or costly; (v) avoid barriers to legitimate trade; (vi) be fair and equitable and strike a “fair balance” between the applicable… [read post]
6 Apr 2021, 5:00 am
State Level Cooperation. [read post]
23 Sep 2013, 12:50 pm
Howard II, John R. [read post]
17 Feb 2018, 7:31 am
Carr J stated in respect of this argument he would have concluded that the "shear variant" produced substantially the same result in the same way and obviously so as the patent states it is the preferred arrangement. [read post]
23 May 2024, 6:00 am
II. [read post]
23 May 2024, 6:00 am
II. [read post]
9 May 2017, 4:42 am
That was the issue before Arnold J. in his latest judgment considering the SPC Regulation in (1) Sandoz Limited (2) Hexal AG v (1) G.D. [read post]
11 Oct 2017, 8:17 am
Well, Bulgaria is in the EU and an EUTM can be blocked from registration by a national mark from any EU Member State. [read post]
30 Jun 2023, 4:51 am
[1] Loper Petition for Writ of Certiorari (Nov. 10, 2022) at pp. i-ii. [read post]
7 Dec 2016, 11:58 pm
Paragraph [0003] of the Patent states that the invention is directed to chronic pain disorders. [read post]
24 Oct 2013, 12:49 pm
It transpired that Professor Baldwin had supervised the no doubt fresh faced, eager Richard Arnold during his Part II year [“Fresh faced in 1979? [read post]
9 Mar 2017, 8:38 am
Arnold v. [read post]
27 Nov 2012, 8:43 am
And now, here is a legal first, straight from the pen (well, keyboard) of our Mr Justice Arnold in joined cases Actavis Group hf v Eli Lilly & Company (USA)/Medis ehf v Eli Lilly & Company (USA) [2012] EWHC 3316 (Pat) on whether the English Courts have jurisdiction over issues of infringement of foreign-designated patents. [read post]
31 Oct 2017, 12:05 am
The answer on novelty, according to Arnold J., is that the doctrine of equivalence does not apply. [read post]
29 Apr 2015, 2:03 am
Mr Justice Arnold cited two of his cases where this had occurred: Force India Formula One Team Ltd v 1 Malaysia Racing Team Sdn Bhd [2012] [noted by the IPKat here] and Primary Group (UK) Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2014]. [read post]
23 Mar 2016, 4:41 am
The Trunki caseThe key cases relevant to these questions were Proctor & Gamble v Reckitt Benckiser [2007] EWCA Civ 936, in which it was held that a registered design based on a line drawing was for the shape alone, and Samsung v Apple [2012] EWCA Civ 1339, in which Apple had contended that lack of ornamentation was a feature of the simple line drawing of a tablet which they had registered as the design. [read post]
24 Feb 2016, 7:47 am
Since the landmark 2014 decision of Arnold J in Cartier [here, here, here] (currently under appeal: the appeal will be heard on 13 April) it appears that indeed this type of measure is also available to trade mark owners.IPKat readers will remember that the reason why this was uncertain is because - unlike what happened in relation to Article 8(3) of the InfoSoc Directive (transposed into UK law through the adoption of s97A of the Copyright Designs and… [read post]
29 Apr 2010, 7:24 am
Nor did it provide copies of any written observations filed by the parties, the Commission or the Member States.... [read post]
