Search for: "Alexander v. Alexander"
Results 681 - 700
of 2,825
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Mar 2014, 9:30 pm
Hirabayashi and Lane Rio Hirabayashi, A PRINCIPLED STAND: THE STORY OF HIRABAYASHI v. [read post]
14 Aug 2014, 9:30 pm
DonovanRethinking People v. [read post]
3 Nov 2015, 2:53 am
Henry Williams, Philadelphia Common Pleas Judges Eugene V. [read post]
7 Apr 2017, 9:30 pm
He also notes Professor Christopher Green’s comment on Judge Richard Posner’s reference to originalism in a recent opinion in Hively v. [read post]
23 May 2016, 4:00 am
Sepinwall, Burdening Substantial Burdens: Zubik v. [read post]
1 Jul 2013, 7:38 am
Originally sentenced by Kalamazoo County Circuit Judge Alexander C. [read post]
25 Mar 2020, 7:12 pm
Int’l, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Oct 2017, 12:30 am
From Occupied America, where Chief Justice Chase wrote in Texas v. [read post]
16 Jul 2018, 6:25 am
On June 21, 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in Lucia v. [read post]
22 Jun 2011, 4:40 am
Alexander. [read post]
1 Dec 2009, 5:37 am
Nine new cases were designated to the Business Court during November 2009: Alexander Hospital Investors, LLC v. [read post]
22 Oct 2012, 10:56 am
” Doe v. [read post]
4 Sep 2009, 12:15 am
In Trefelner v. [read post]
1 Sep 2008, 3:12 pm
Corp., 672 F.2d 607, 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (quoting Alexander v. [read post]
18 Sep 2024, 5:39 am
The district court properly exercised its discretion because evidence showed that Avco’s purchases of AVStar’s infringing products were motivated by reasons other than use of infringing trademarks, and Precision provided no evidence to support exemplary remedies (Avco Corp. v. [read post]
26 Jul 2024, 5:28 am
Ltd. v. [read post]
13 Aug 2024, 5:47 am
The court also rejected Defendant’s claim of trademark infringement because (1) Plaintiff only used the trademark for promoting NanoBone products, and (2) the sole trademark at issue was the word “NanoBone,” without any stylization, while Plaintiff’s trademarks were stylized variations (Artoss, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Oct 2024, 4:29 am
The district court properly exercised its discretion because evidence showed that Avco’s purchases of AVStar’s infringing products were motivated by reasons other than use of infringing trademarks, and Precision provided no evidence to support exemplary remedies (Avco Corp. v. [read post]
9 Jun 2022, 4:03 am
Thus, the Board’s decision that the challenged claims of the patent were unpatentable was affirmed (Ethicon LLC v. [read post]
19 Jul 2022, 7:46 am
., vacated its prior decision, and reversed the district court’s judgment that the claims of patent at issue were not invalid (Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. v. [read post]
