Search for: "State v. Grace"
Results 581 - 600
of 1,370
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Mar 2016, 2:56 pm
(National Restaurant Association v. [read post]
2 Mar 2016, 2:56 pm
(National Restaurant Association v. [read post]
23 Feb 2016, 1:53 am
[2016] EWHC 188 (Pat) is about the most recent practice direction which aligns the UK regime with the fast-approaching UPC's stated intention that all cases will be done and dusted within a year. [read post]
14 Feb 2016, 12:23 am
Dissenting again in Lee v. [read post]
8 Feb 2016, 6:30 am
Pryor II v. [read post]
4 Feb 2016, 9:39 am
Wells and Noel v. [read post]
30 Jan 2016, 7:22 am
” See Unocal Corp. v. [read post]
25 Jan 2016, 1:31 am
* Time for a harmonised grace period, says FICPIThe debate over whether there should be a harmonised international grace period, allowing limited disclosure or commercialisation of an invention before filing a patent application, has rumbled along for many years. [read post]
25 Jan 2016, 12:00 am
Anderson v. [read post]
25 Jan 2016, 12:00 am
Anderson v. [read post]
25 Jan 2016, 12:00 am
Anderson v. [read post]
24 Jan 2016, 9:30 pm
The Supreme Court has even stated as much in its 1985 decision in Heckler v. [read post]
10 Jan 2016, 7:49 am
United States v. [read post]
19 Dec 2015, 8:28 am
Arbino v. [read post]
9 Dec 2015, 9:03 am
State v. [read post]
7 Dec 2015, 7:37 am
It was only by the grace of trade secrets that DuPont could ensure supreme quality and continue to attract collaborators and customers to the table, while staying competitive.Beall responded by stating that trade secrets were also critical to his business, citing an example from his company who are a market leader in the manufacture of LCD glass for television screens. [read post]
2 Dec 2015, 12:38 pm
., McClain v. [read post]
30 Nov 2015, 8:17 am
Stewart v. [read post]
30 Nov 2015, 4:04 am
The Professor last graced this blog with a guest post in March 2015 on the subject of veiling piercing and LLCs. [read post]
29 Oct 2015, 6:56 am
The guidance follows the decision of the European Court of Justice (the ECJ) in Case C-362/14 – Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner that Decision 2000/520 of the European Commission, which stated that Safe Harbor-certified US companies provide adequate protection for personal data transferred to them from the EU (the Safe Harbor Adequacy Decision), is invalid. [read post]
