Search for: "Way v. Lucas*"
Results 41 - 56
of 56
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Dec 2017, 1:42 pm
It seems that in every creative industry where money has flowed, IP protection has found a way to adapt in order to provide some security to those revenue streams. [read post]
10 Oct 2011, 8:55 am
Devolution issues The background to the case is that the UK Supreme Court (as a result of the powers it inherited from the Privy Council by way of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005) has a limited jurisdiction to hear Scottish appeals that raise devolution issues. [read post]
3 Apr 2009, 7:23 pm
LLC v W. [read post]
31 Dec 2019, 4:40 am
In Rimini Street, Inc. v. [read post]
20 Apr 2012, 10:18 am
Americans v. [read post]
9 Aug 2011, 12:47 am
The protection of certain rights had, to a certain extent, to give way to security concerns. [read post]
9 Aug 2008, 1:50 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Thinktank Global week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included: The end of William Patry’s blog: (Patry Copyright Blog), (Excess Copyright), (Patently-O), (Chicago IP Litigation Blog), (Michael Geist), (The Fire of Genius), (Techdirt), (Patry Copyright Blog), Kitchin J clarifies scope of biotech patents, in particular gene sequence patents: Eli Lilly & Co v Human Genome Sciences:… [read post]
20 Feb 2012, 3:35 am
Last week, in State v. [read post]
13 Apr 2009, 4:00 am
Grubb v. [read post]
27 Dec 2015, 11:56 am
Bank v. [read post]
12 Nov 2007, 5:25 am
”Under the current law, as articulated by the Court of Appeals in June 2006 in the case of Walling v. [read post]
15 Aug 2013, 11:07 am
Our Costa Mesa wage and hour attorneys understand that the plaintiffs in Frlekin et al v. [read post]
27 Jul 2011, 2:58 am
In the same way that life imitates art, so too does litigation. [read post]
26 Jul 2012, 12:54 pm
For example, in Nichols v. [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 6:03 am
Path. et al. v. [read post]
16 Dec 2009, 5:01 am
Even so, none of the items of uniform in this case were "sculptures" since they lacked the necessary quality of artistic creation.* the objects in dispute were not works of artistic craftsmanship since it was no part of their purpose that they should in any way appeal as a piece of art [This conclusion was not the subject of appeal, much to the disappointment of the IPKat who never tires of reading judicial pronouncements on this point]. [read post]
