Search for: "Floyd v. State"
Results 601 - 620
of 761
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Jul 2017, 7:59 am
" That led the court to a consideration of prior English case law as well of that of other EPC member states. [read post]
17 Feb 2025, 12:33 am
The defamation claim was brought by documentary maker, John Ware against Pink Floyd singer, Roger Waters in relation to comments the musician made in an Al Jazeera programme to suggest that the claimant is a “pro-Zionist, pro-genocider” who supports a genocide of the Palestinian people. [read post]
14 May 2018, 6:47 am
According to a prior Disputing blog post: In Jody James Farms, JV v. [read post]
25 Feb 2025, 2:33 pm
As the Supreme Court reaffirmed in the landmark 1964 case New York Times v. [read post]
16 Jul 2020, 6:33 am
Jones v. [read post]
7 Dec 2010, 11:42 am
United States. [read post]
21 Oct 2014, 12:00 am
In Novartis AG v Generics (UK) Limited (t/a Mylan) [2012] EWCA Civ1623, discussed by the IPKat (see here) the Court of Appeal had to review the decision of Floyd J (here) in assessing inventive step where the compound went through several steps during research and development. [read post]
4 Sep 2013, 10:36 am
Then, that was a panel discussion that additionally included Lord Justice Floyd (also sitting on the UPC Rules of Procedure Committee), Alan Johnson (Bristows), and Richard Vary (Nokia). [read post]
16 Feb 2021, 2:57 am
A map of Ring-police partnerships in the United States. [read post]
7 Dec 2021, 8:44 am
I'll begin by laying out a few categories of situations where the risk of reputational harm is especially serious, and then summarize the state of court decisions on the subject. [1.] [read post]
17 Feb 2019, 4:06 pm
IPSO has handed down a number of recent rulings: Resolution Statement 0782-18 Wilson v thesun.co.uk, 2 Privacy (2018), 1 Accuracy (2018), Resolved – IPSO mediation Resolution Statement 07827-18 Wilson v Mail Online, 1 Accuracy (2018), 2 Privacy (2018), Resolved – IPSO mediation 06605-18 McPartlin and Corbett v Woman, 2 Privacy (2018), No breach – after investigation 06604-18 McPartlin and Corbett v Now, 2 Privacy (2018), No breach – after… [read post]
9 Jun 2021, 4:41 am
They were debating whether much of the Supreme Court case of Dred Scott v. [read post]
7 Mar 2023, 6:30 am
The other three officers who participated in Floyd's murder are also serving shorter concurrent state and federal sentences. [read post]
19 Jan 2014, 7:20 am
This is because, like all keen IP bloggers, they are in a state of perpetual catch-up: the moment we take time off to read a piece of news, give it some thought and then write it up, something else suddenly crops up while we're not looking. [read post]
8 Mar 2010, 4:36 pm
United States (Copyright Litigation Blog) (Property, intangible) US Trade Marks – Decisions Precedential No. 7: TTAB deems internet printouts admissible via notice of reliance: Safer, Inc v OMS Investments, Inc (TTABlog) TTAB vacates 2008 fraud ruling in Herbaceuticals, Inc v Xel Pharmaceuticals, Inc (TTABlog) TTAB affirms 2(d) refusal of CARMINE’S design for restaurant services in view of two other CARMINE’S designs: In re Carmine's Broadway… [read post]
8 Mar 2010, 4:36 pm
United States (Copyright Litigation Blog) (Property, intangible) US Trade Marks – Decisions Precedential No. 7: TTAB deems internet printouts admissible via notice of reliance: Safer, Inc v OMS Investments, Inc (TTABlog) TTAB vacates 2008 fraud ruling in Herbaceuticals, Inc v Xel Pharmaceuticals, Inc (TTABlog) TTAB affirms 2(d) refusal of CARMINE’S design for restaurant services in view of two other CARMINE’S designs: In re Carmine's Broadway… [read post]
9 Dec 2024, 3:44 pm
From Gustilo v. [read post]
4 Nov 2024, 4:00 am
" Assuming that's true, one would want to know whether it's a response to a shift in attitudes or mostly a litigation-avoidance strategy in response to Students for Fair Admissions v. [read post]
30 Aug 2020, 3:47 pm
Laws in this area are not universal or uniform (even as between states that are parties to the ECHR). [read post]
17 Nov 2020, 11:23 am
(Lawfare) State of Maryland v. [read post]
