Search for: "State v Cooper"
Results 7501 - 7520
of 8,568
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Jul 2009, 6:27 am
In United States v. [read post]
13 Jul 2009, 6:45 am
(Afro-IP) Spain Trade mark cancellation and damages: a matter of (bad) faith (Class 46) United Kingdom EWHC (Pat): No ruling on hypothetical issue: MMI Research Ltd v Cellxion Ltd (IPKat) EWHC (Pat): EP 258 valid in Netherlands but not UK: Novartis AG and Cibavision AG v Johnson & Johnson Medical Ltd & Ors (PatLit) EWHC: Trial judge says ‘Boileau’ to patent licence; appeal court agrees: Oxonica Energy Ltd v Neuftec… [read post]
13 Jul 2009, 12:53 am
Inc. v. [read post]
10 Jul 2009, 8:28 am
His Holiness whose latest encyclical, Caritas in veritate, states, at para 22: "Corruption and illegality are unfortunately evident in the conduct of the economic and political class in rich countries, both old and new, as well as in poor ones. [read post]
10 Jul 2009, 6:04 am
United States v. [read post]
10 Jul 2009, 12:55 am
United States. [read post]
9 Jul 2009, 11:46 pm
General Cable Technologies Corporation v. [read post]
7 Jul 2009, 12:40 am
In a joint opinion, the committees state that accepting legal fees from such a company, or dividing with the company a fee paid by a homeowner, constitutes impermissible fee-sharing, and an attorney who engages in such a practice "imperils his or her license to practice law. [read post]
6 Jul 2009, 10:43 pm
Just found them via Google Alerts and only have had time to read FLIR Systems, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Jul 2009, 10:01 am
United States v. [read post]
2 Jul 2009, 1:29 pm
Bank v. [read post]
2 Jul 2009, 8:00 am
As for the Blasius doctrine, the decision in Portnoy v. [read post]
1 Jul 2009, 5:09 am
State and Craven v. [read post]
1 Jul 2009, 12:55 am
Keyes, special counsel at the firm, write: In Continental Casualty Co. v. [read post]
1 Jul 2009, 12:38 am
Less adversarial EDD is the goal of his Cooperation Proclamation. [read post]
30 Jun 2009, 5:58 am
See Ciomber v. [read post]
30 Jun 2009, 3:26 am
District Judge - United States CourthouseMitchell H. [read post]
29 Jun 2009, 10:15 pm
"* Sections 17 and 18 of the Public Officers Law, respectively, requires that the appropriate employer provide for the defense and indemnification of State and municipal officers and employees being sued for acts or omissions involving the performance of their official duties.The decision is posted on the Internet at:[www.courts.state.ny.us] [read post]
29 Jun 2009, 8:05 am
The recent decision by the supremes in Forest Grove Sch Dist v. [read post]
29 Jun 2009, 1:00 am
: L’Oréal v Bellure (IPKat) Is the ruling in L’Oréal v Bellure against the law? [read post]
