Search for: "Walker v. Stephens"
Results 41 - 60
of 201
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Mar 2013, 5:43 am
Today, following some years of litigation which the IPKat has monitored here, here and here, the UK Supreme Court has given its decision in Schütz v Werit [2013] UKSC 16, A unanimous five-judge court (Lord Neuberger, Lord Walker -- both of whom are former members of the Patents Court -- plus Lady Hale, Lord Mance and Lord Kerr) allowing the appeal and holding that Werit was not infringing Schütz's patent rights by supplying replacing parts. [read post]
25 Jul 2018, 12:49 pm
For more on this case, see Chris Walker's post on Notice & Comment. [read post]
6 Jan 2023, 4:07 pm
From the majority opinion, by Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, in Cargill v. [read post]
21 Jan 2009, 7:21 pm
Bank & Trust Co. v. [read post]
6 Apr 2020, 5:03 pm
Walker, 574 U. [read post]
29 May 2020, 4:06 pm
Walker (D. [read post]
14 Jan 2010, 6:26 am
Image by Getty Images via Daylife If you want to view the constitutional challenge to Proposition 8 banning gay marriage (Perry v. [read post]
24 Apr 2008, 11:26 am
State of Indiana (NFP) Derick Walker v. [read post]
13 Apr 2015, 12:56 pm
SCOTT WALKER v. [read post]
25 Feb 2008, 8:18 pm
Walker (1965) that “the exclusionary rule announced in Mapp (v. [read post]
9 Aug 2012, 2:54 am
The documentary evidence conclusively established that the plaintiff does not have a viable claim of legal malpractice (see Walker v Kramer, 63 AD3d 723; Faden v Satterlee Stephens Burke & Burke, LLP, 52 AD3d 652). [read post]
15 Mar 2007, 5:26 am
Walker, 854 F.2d at 142; Smith v. [read post]
30 Sep 2013, 11:23 am
Prime Minister Stephen Harper made the announcement this morning. [read post]
16 Jan 2024, 1:19 pm
Nessim is co-founder and CEO, and Stephen Sigrist is a senior vice president, at SAR LLC. [read post]
12 Oct 2014, 6:34 am
Wolkoff v. [read post]
30 Oct 2014, 8:52 am
Walker, 86 Ohio St.3d 169 (1999). [read post]
15 Jul 2009, 10:52 am
Q. 375 Tanya Monestier, “Lepine v. [read post]
25 Mar 2019, 3:55 am
Christopher Walker previewed the case for this blog. [read post]
3 Feb 2013, 3:57 pm
[Hall v Wandsworth at 29]Mitu v Camden LBC [2011] EWCA Civ 1249 is taken as an explanation of Hall, when Lewison LJ says:Section 203 (4) distinguishes between a “decision” and an “issue”. [read post]
3 Feb 2013, 3:57 pm
[Hall v Wandsworth at 29]Mitu v Camden LBC [2011] EWCA Civ 1249 is taken as an explanation of Hall, when Lewison LJ says:Section 203 (4) distinguishes between a “decision” and an “issue”. [read post]
