Search for: "A R C C A Inc" Results 6201 - 6220 of 8,833
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Mar 2012, 11:34 am by William McGrath
The Commission's responses to Chiquita Brands, Inc. and MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc. were the same. [read post]
23 May 2018, 3:59 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“Allegations regarding an act of deceit or intent to deceive must be stated with particularity” (Facebook, Inc. v DLA Piper LLP [US], 134 AD3d 610, 615 [2015]; see Putnam County Temple & Jewish Ctr., Inc. v Rhinebeck Sav. [read post]
16 Apr 2012, 3:00 am by Peter A. Mahler
Matter of Baba Makhan Shah Lobana Sikh Center, Inc., 2011 NY Slip Op 31271(U) (Sup Ct Queens County Apr. 18, 2011). [read post]
15 Jan 2010, 3:46 am
Apple, Inc (Patent Infringement Blog) District Court N D Illinois orders Microsoft to ‘explain the need’ for counterclaims seeking declarations of noninfringement and invalidity: Performance Proxy Research LLC v. [read post]
1 Nov 2010, 2:46 am by Kelly
Mach II Aviation, Inc (Docket Report) District Court C D California: Failure to object to prior art evidence at summary judgment bars objection at trial: Accentra, Inc. et al v. [read post]
13 Oct 2008, 12:12 pm
(IAM) Lost knowledge (IP Spotlight) Nobel Prize winning physicist R B Laughlin explains how IP damages innovation (Techdirt) US v China IP case before the World Trade Organisation - differing news on who won or lost (EXCESS COPYRIGHT) (Chinese Law Prof Blog) WIPO Assemblies conclude (WIPO) (Intellectual Property Watch) (Intellectual Property Watch)       Global – Trade Marks / Brands   Trade mark marking strategy - R and TM… [read post]
23 Feb 2023, 12:42 pm by Norman L. Eisen
Scott Perry (R-Penn.) is protected by the Speech or Debate Clause from the Jan. 6 criminal investigation. [read post]
5 Jul 2011, 1:44 pm
It is also important that courts should be cautious about criticising an expert witness purely on the basis of omissions from his report unless it is clear that the fault lies with the expert rather than those instructing him, bearing in mind that the court will not usually be privy to the expert’s full instructions (whatever may be the effect of CPR r. 35.10(4), which it is not necessary to go into for present purposes). [read post]