Search for: "The United States, Petitioner" Results 6101 - 6120 of 8,963
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Aug 2007, 11:38 am
Petitioner's "scheme liability" theory is simply a semantic ploy designed to recast secondary conduct as a primary violation. [read post]
2 Aug 2019, 10:48 am by Nikki Siesel
Merely descriptive marks will be refused on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). [read post]
13 Nov 2013, 5:26 am by Dennis Crouch
Circuit wrote: An administrative agency is not subject to Article III of the Constitution of the United States [and] so the petitioner would have had no need to establish its standing to participate in the proceedings before the agency. [read post]
1 May 2009, 11:36 am by Bill Heinze
Furthermore, while Section 44 was “generally intended” to implement elements of the Paris Convention, In re Rath, 402 F.3d at 1207, 74 USPQ2d at 1177, it does not, through subsections 44(b) or (h) or otherwise, provide the user of an assertedly famous foreign trademark with an independent basis for cancellation in a Board proceeding, absent use of the mark in the United States. [read post]
31 Jan 2008, 9:30 am
United States; granted Feb. 20, 2007, argued Oct. 30, 2007) Shortest amount of time: 96 days (Meacham v. [read post]
16 Sep 2011, 6:50 am
Secretary of Health and Human Services, a claim before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for damages from a documented vaccine reaction. [read post]
4 Mar 2010, 6:25 pm by Anna Christensen
Arguing on behalf of the United States as an amicus in support of the petitioners, Assistant to the Solicitor General Pratik Shah reiterated that the plain terms of Section 233(a) are broad enough to preclude Bivens actions even if Congress did not specifically contemplate such actions. [read post]
8 Jan 2018, 7:11 pm
If the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) exceeds its statutory authority by instituting an IPR proceeding under circumstances contrary to the language of § 315(b), our court, sitting in its proper role as an appellate court, should review those determinations. [read post]
24 Aug 2020, 7:09 am by DONALD SCARINCI
Petitioner Jimcy McGirt was convicted by an Oklahoma state court of three serious sexual offenses. [read post]
14 Dec 2006, 4:08 am
See Brief For United States As Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioner, Buckman Co. v. [read post]
28 May 2019, 6:47 pm by Kevin LaCroix
  The Cert Petition In a petition to the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, the individual defendants sought to have the Court review the Ninth Circuit’s decision and to address the question of when if ever an issuer has an affirmative duty to update a statement that was accurate when made. [read post]
23 Jun 2007, 7:07 am
Finally, the Court found that the petitioner was not entitled to attorney's fees and costs under EDPL 702 (B) as no acquisition procedure had been commenced. [read post]
23 Jun 2007, 7:07 am
Finally, the Court found that the petitioner was not entitled to attorney's fees and costs under EDPL 702 (B) as no acquisition procedure had been commenced. [read post]
16 Nov 2011, 11:08 am by Joel R. Brandes
Between October 2009 and September 2010, respondent visited petitioner at the motel on a daily basis, and it was undisputed that petitioner consented to those visits. [read post]
2 Sep 2011, 5:14 pm by Christa Culver
Certiorari stage documents:Opinion below (3d Cir.)Petition for certiorariBrief in opposition (forthcoming)Petitioners' reply [read post]
12 Jun 2018, 4:06 am by Edith Roberts
United States by an equally divided court. [read post]
12 Mar 2007, 4:48 pm
United States v. [read post]
26 Jan 2009, 11:17 am
United States, which recognized district courts' authority to vary from the crack guidelines based solely on a policy disagreement, and not simply on individualized determination that guidelines yield excessive sentence in a particular caseReported at 21 Fla. [read post]
17 Oct 2010, 10:14 am by Lyonette Louis-Jacques
 He was chief reporter for the Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States. [read post]