Search for: "Wells v. Walter" Results 41 - 60 of 996
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Aug 2023, 3:42 pm by Ilya Somin
Speech that is part of a conspiracy to accomplish those things may be unprotected as well. [read post]
13 Jul 2023, 5:01 am by Eugene Volokh
But in any event, I wanted to pass this along, since this is to my knowledge only the second lawsuit over libel-by-AI, after Walters v. [read post]
8 Jul 2023, 4:33 pm by Barry Barnett
The nearly half-century reign of The Antitrust Paradox has left the American economy, in industry after industry, with firms that wield power to raise prices and slow innovation as well as “seemingly endless” and “nearly unlimited” resources for fighting enforcement.[18] As the Antitrust Division put it, “increased enforcement activity has stretched its staff and technology infrastructure to their limits”.[19] And litigation itself has… [read post]
7 Jul 2023, 9:05 pm by Julia Englebert
Under this theory, the Supreme Court held in American Electric Power v. [read post]
19 Jun 2023, 8:56 pm by Josh Blackman
As a result, he was blacklisted by Barr, as well as Mike Luttig. [read post]
  This appears to be in contrast with the finding of Mr Justice Mellor in InterDigital v Lenovo that all past infringements should be paid for (even if that involves ignoring limitation periods), as well as comments made elsewhere by Mr Justice Meade that liability arises from first use of the patented technology. [read post]
29 May 2023, 11:43 am by Kluwer Patent blogger
These provisions, placed today in Chapter V of the UPCA, include the definition of the patent’s owner prerogatives to prevent the direct and indirect use of the invention (Art. 25 and 26), the list of limitations concerning the scope of patent protection, including inter alia, acts done privately or for experimental purposes, the use of biological material for the purpose of breeding, discovering and developing other plant varieties (Art. 27), the condition of the right for prior use… [read post]
The court found that the claim would broadly include antibodies which compete with the 21B12 antibody in a manner that sterically hinders the binding of PCSK9 to LDLR as well as antibodies which hinder the binding of PCSK9 to LDLR by recognizing the same or overlapping binding site as the 21B12 antibody when binding on PCSK9. [read post]