Search for: "Meyer Corp. v. United States" Results 61 - 80 of 84
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Sep 2022, 5:23 am by Eugene Volokh
The Court articulated the modern extraterritoriality test in two alcohol price-affirmation cases in the 1980s.[14] Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. [read post]
25 Apr 2015, 11:03 am by Schachtman
Third, the Manual authors state that the doubling argument assumes the “[n]onacceleration of disease. [read post]
18 Jun 2018, 7:06 pm by MOTP
The arbitrator agreed with Rain & Hail that Jody James did not "timely present[] notice of its claim in accordance with the provisions of the crop insurance policy" and, further, "did not state a presentable loss" because crops from performing and non-performing farm units were commingled. [read post]
26 Dec 2010, 9:39 pm by Marie Louise
(Article One Partners) Patenting green technology: What you need to know (IPEG) US Patents – Decisions CAFC decision in case concerning laser inscribing of diamonds a mixed bag: Lazare Kaplan v PhotoScribe (IPBiz) CAFC sides with USPTO in patent re-examination declaration dispute: In re Meyer Manufacturing (Patents Post-Grant) District Court N D Illinois: Scrivener’s error in patent marking does not preclude finding of intent to deceive: Lundeen et al v John T… [read post]
27 Feb 2011, 9:49 pm by Marie Louise
JL Gory, LLC (PATracer) Visicu – Visicu hopes to resuscitate its ICU patents: Cerner Corp. v. [read post]
31 Jan 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
On Jan. 16, the Supreme Court will hear argument in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. [read post]
6 Dec 2010, 2:36 am by Kelly
– IPO consultation (Class 99) Reform of IP taxation – consultation underway (IP finance) The PCC Page no.8: Last chance to make your voice heard – consultation on the proposed limit on recoverable damages in the Patents County Court (PatLit) United States US General USPTO launches Twitter account (Patent Docs) US Patent Reform ‘Patent reform’ still possible in 2010?!? [read post]
22 Dec 2008, 12:07 pm
General Motors Corp 6th Affirms Pro Se $120,000 Employment Discrimination VerdictMadden v. [read post]