Search for: "LaBelle v. LaBelle"
Results 7161 - 7180
of 12,213
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Sep 2015, 3:06 pm
In re Anthony,414 F.2d 1383 (CCPA 1969) (FDA, not USPTO, is responsible for safety ofdrugs which are sought to be patented); In re Watson, 517 F.2d 465 (CCPA1975) (Congress has given responsibility to FDA, not USPTO, to determinein the first instance whether drugs are safe); Purdue Pharma L.P. v. [read post]
12 Jan 2018, 4:32 am
Yoshinoya: Reporting Time Gets Modernized — via Impact Litigation Journal Labor More on the Trump NLRB and What it Means for Employers — via Trade Secret / Noncompete Blog Look for the Union Label? [read post]
29 Mar 2024, 9:50 am
Schotte v. [read post]
3 Jul 2023, 11:55 am
Painters & Allied Trades District Council 82 Health Care Fund v. [read post]
2 Jan 2014, 8:00 am
NetJets Inc. v. [read post]
19 Jul 2017, 3:47 am
And in Access Copyright v. [read post]
27 Apr 2016, 10:27 am
The plaintiff in Frere v. [read post]
13 Jun 2018, 6:56 am
Board-Tech Electronic Co. v. [read post]
30 Oct 2020, 6:22 am
Young Hollywood LLC v. [read post]
11 May 2015, 8:47 am
Do you remember the tale of Customs Fraud Investigations, LLC v. [read post]
6 Mar 2023, 11:14 am
., Inc. v. [read post]
26 Mar 2014, 1:11 pm
Last July we discussed a rare event, a preemption win for an innovator drug under the Wyeth v. [read post]
22 Jul 2014, 2:15 am
for "adhesive-backed labels; adhesive-backed plastic film designating signatory action. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 12:52 pm
Irvine v. [read post]
18 Nov 2019, 11:35 pm
Even for SEPs, despite the CJEU's Huawei v. [read post]
28 Aug 2018, 7:36 am
One common argument in support of indecency regulations is that they merely restrict certain modes of expression, and leave people entirely free to express whatever ideas they like; as Justice Stevens put it, defending the indecency restriction in FCC v. [read post]
27 Mar 2023, 5:58 am
Hernandez v. [read post]
19 Mar 2015, 6:33 am
., LLC v. [read post]
15 Apr 2019, 5:49 am
United States Polo Association v. [read post]
