Search for: "Ring v. Ring"
Results 41 - 60
of 2,941
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Jan 2024, 6:58 am
However, in cases focusing on meeting the parties’ needs, the practice of ring-fencing pensions accrued outside the marriage might not be suitable. [read post]
6 Jan 2024, 6:22 am
Yang analysed the recent judgment in Optis v Apple Trial E (one of six related trials), which focuses on the terms of a FRAND licence and the conduct of the parties in the negotiations.Marcel Pemsel reviewed the new book by Pierre Heuzé, written in French, entitled L'épuisement des droits de propriété intellectuelle sur un matériel biologique en droit suisse [Exhaustion of intellectual property rights in biological material under Swiss law]. [read post]
4 Jan 2024, 12:44 pm
In Janus v. [read post]
2 Jan 2024, 11:20 am
In Elekta Limited v. [read post]
30 Dec 2023, 2:13 am
Pierre Balmain – a lion’s head encircled by rings forming a chain. [read post]
28 Dec 2023, 5:00 am
For example, one key due date is in Section 8(b)(iv)–(v). [read post]
24 Dec 2023, 3:26 pm
Bezos Epic Fail of the Rings. [read post]
8 Dec 2023, 6:49 am
Vigil v. [read post]
3 Dec 2023, 12:36 pm
Imam, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Croydon (2023) UKSC 45 Full transparency – I acted for Crisis on an intervention in this case. [read post]
28 Nov 2023, 8:45 am
by Dennis Crouch Universal Life Church Monastery v. [read post]
27 Nov 2023, 12:29 pm
In this first-of-its-kind JURIST “global dispatch” on a single topic, 15 law students and young lawyers from around the world, all of them JURIST correspondents from outside of Israel and Palestine, join together to offer a panoramic view of how the current Gaza conflict is unfolding in their countries and regions. [read post]
17 Nov 2023, 5:17 am
Well, the recent case of MN v AN [2023], highlights how courts view prenups in the UK and promote the idea that they will uphold if certain conditions are met. [read post]
12 Nov 2023, 2:35 am
In AWF v Goldsmith, the US Supreme Court clarified that not all works which add “new expression, meaning, or message”[15] will be considered ‘transformative’ by the law, since this would conflict with the copyright holder’s “exclusive right to prepare derivative works,” effectively rendering it useless. [read post]
6 Nov 2023, 4:27 pm
In U.S. v. [read post]
3 Nov 2023, 1:55 am
Hanagami v. [read post]
31 Oct 2023, 11:29 am
” Can the officer answer the phone if it rings? [read post]
29 Oct 2023, 11:00 pm
DOES THIS RING TRUE TO YOU? [read post]
26 Oct 2023, 8:35 am
No recalls issued The California case, Raul Siqueiros, et al. v. [read post]
19 Oct 2023, 10:14 am
by Dennis Crouch ABS Global, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Oct 2023, 7:46 am
If you've been too busy pumpkin shopping to keep up with the latest news, don't worry - the IPKat is here to bring you up to speed.PatentsThis Kat hasn't quite got the hang of carving Jack-O-LanternsKatfriend Léon Dijkman provided an update about 10X Genomics v Nanostring - the first-ever injunction decision by the new Unified Patent Court (UPC). [read post]
