Search for: "State v. Sweet"
Results 741 - 760
of 972
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Jun 2010, 8:25 am
United States v. [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 6:30 pm
” The professor brief is short, sweet and to the point. [read post]
11 Jun 2010, 6:29 am
Howard Wasserman analyzes the Court’s recent decision in Krupski v. [read post]
2 Jun 2010, 2:53 am
The sweet talk of Johnston v. [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]
14 May 2010, 10:47 pm
In that closely-watched case, see slip opinion in Caperton v. [read post]
10 May 2010, 2:59 am
In addition, the authority of local and state regulatory agencies will be usurped by the U.S. [read post]
5 May 2010, 6:40 am
Based on Justice Scalia’s questions in last week’s argument in Doe v. [read post]
27 Apr 2010, 1:34 pm
(London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1906) states: If the judge deems it essential to discovering the truth that the witnesses should be examined out of the hearing of each other, he will order them all on both sides to withdraw, excepting the one under examination. [read post]
21 Apr 2010, 5:33 am
Margaret Hamburg states in a preface to the report, “performance in many traditionally strong PDUFA goal areas decreased in FY 2008; and, therefore, this report presents a picture of mixed success. [read post]
20 Apr 2010, 7:12 am
Diamond v. [read post]
19 Apr 2010, 1:00 pm
See Madey v. [read post]
12 Apr 2010, 8:08 am
The current (April 2010) issue of Sweet & Maxwell's European Trade Mark Reports (click here for details) carries reports on various important recent trade mark cases, the first of which is an English translation of the ruling of the Court of Appeal of 's Hertengebosch in Revillon Chocolatier v Trianon Chocolatiers BV. [read post]
11 Apr 2010, 7:41 am
Selectica, Inc. v. [read post]
1 Apr 2010, 4:30 am
This opinion's rationale, if adopted elsewhere, has the potential to convert untasty sweets into causes of action to be wielded against unsuspecting candy manufacturers.The case at issue is Arthur Slugworth v. [read post]
1 Apr 2010, 3:30 am
In State v. [read post]
31 Mar 2010, 6:28 am
United States Patent and Trademark Office et al., 1-09-cv-04515 (NYSD March 29, 2010, Opinion) (Sweet, J.) [read post]
30 Mar 2010, 1:42 pm
United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al. certainly could be a contender. [read post]
29 Mar 2010, 7:19 pm
United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al. [read post]
28 Mar 2010, 4:18 pm
in Comstock may come back to haunt them in McDonald v. [read post]
