Search for: "United States v. Abed" Results 681 - 700 of 821
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Oct 2010, 10:00 am by The Legal Blog
Girdharilal Yadav (2004) 6 SCC 325; State of Maharashtra v. [read post]
19 Sep 2010, 10:39 pm by Kelly
KG v OHIM (IPKat) AG supports AB InBev’s case in BUD appeal: Anheuser-Busch v Bud? [read post]
8 Sep 2010, 12:07 am
The Oyster Case: Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v. [read post]
27 Aug 2010, 5:00 am
There are 3,140 counties in the United State and Iowa has 99 counties. [read post]
23 Aug 2010, 3:35 am by Omar Ha-Redeye
Slave Routes points out, In the United States, the North America historian, Herbert Aptheker, has estimated that approximately 250 acts of sedition in all were organized by Afro-Americans to free themselves from slavery during the history of that “particular institution” in that country. [read post]
23 Aug 2010, 1:22 am by Kelly
Diamond Innovations Inc (EDTexweblog.com) (Docket Report) District Court W D Pennsylvania will revisit and reconsider the standing issue in false marking case: United States of America ex rel FLFMC, LLC v. [read post]
22 Aug 2010, 2:15 pm
LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 1551 (Fed. [read post]
20 Aug 2010, 5:46 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
Alliance, with claimsfound obvious:Following a trial for patent infringement that resulted in a hung jury, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled as a matter of law that U.S. [read post]
23 Jul 2010, 10:06 am by Joseph C. McDaniel
It is probably the broadest injunction in the entire body of United States law, because it is designed to stop the "race of diligence" among creditors, and to protect the debtor and the bankruptcy estate, in Arizona and the rest of the country. [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 11:05 pm
United States (Gray on Claims) CAFC: Orion v Hyundai on novelty: Expanding the scope of a printed publication with oral testimony (Patently-O) District Court N D Illinois: False marking includes marking with expired patent number: ZOJO Solutions Inc. v. [read post]