Search for: "US v. Levelle Grant"
Results 7961 - 7980
of 9,109
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Mar 2010, 5:25 am
Winston v. [read post]
4 Mar 2010, 4:56 pm
Engle v. [read post]
4 Mar 2010, 3:17 pm
In exchange, the Settling Party will be granted a covenant not to sue under Sections 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), with regard to reimbursement of Past Response Costs. [read post]
4 Mar 2010, 3:45 am
The oral argument before the US Supreme Court on Tuesday in McDonald v. [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 12:04 pm
Not one of three lawyers who argued in Samantar v. [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 11:54 am
" Ibid.The US Supreme Court granted Hertz's petition for certiorari. [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 11:05 am
In Rutti v. [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 9:43 am
Google Dismissed--With Sanctions Against KinderStart's Counsel (the anti-SLAPP motion was denied, but it should have been granted) * Google Wins Lawsuit Over Search Results--Maughan v. [read post]
2 Mar 2010, 5:42 am
" Bender v. [read post]
1 Mar 2010, 10:43 am
This morning the Supreme Court denied cert in McCane v. [read post]
28 Feb 2010, 7:59 pm
The case cite is Office Depot, Inc. v. [read post]
28 Feb 2010, 7:31 am
These delays have taken place in many of the recent privacy and confidence actions, for example, Lord Browne v Associated Newspapers, Napier v Pressdram, and Cream Holdings v Banerjee. [read post]
27 Feb 2010, 4:59 pm
Therefore, when the specification uses a single embodiment to enable the claims, courts should not limit the broader claim language to that embodiment "unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope using 'words or expressions of manifest execution or restriction.'" Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. [read post]
26 Feb 2010, 6:55 pm
United States v. [read post]
26 Feb 2010, 7:57 am
The Court’s decisions in Pace v DiGuglielmo, 544 US 408 (2005) and Lawrence v. [read post]
26 Feb 2010, 7:09 am
At PrawfsBlawg, Aaron Bruhl discusses the Court’s use of its GVR (“grant-vacate-remand”) power, citing criticisms leveled recently by Justice Scalia and others that the Court has been over-using this authority. [read post]
26 Feb 2010, 5:09 am
It requested $7.6 million, and the court granted $4.6 million.An edited version of the opinion in the case of EEOC v. [read post]
25 Feb 2010, 1:17 pm
., v. [read post]
25 Feb 2010, 4:43 am
Manara referred to recent decisions - Dior and LVMH v eBay – which held that using a trade mark to attract consumers to a webpage is use and, in the LVMH case, is “parasitism” as eBay benefits from someone else’s investment and therefore should be fined even in the absence of confusion.Manara concluded with an interesting statistic. [read post]
25 Feb 2010, 12:15 am
The case involves a defense objection under Batson v. [read post]
