Search for: "US v. Peter Smith"
Results 61 - 80
of 538
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Apr 2013, 12:27 am
The case in question is A & E Television Networks LLC & Anor v Discovery Communications Europe Ltd [2013] EWHC 109 (Ch), a decision of Mr Justice Peter Smith in the Chancery Division, England and Wales, way back on 1 February. [read post]
13 Jun 2023, 3:36 am
Ultimately, Mr Justice Marcus Smith determined that a FRAND licence to Apple for the Portfolio was a lump sum licence, with the total sum payable by Apple being US$56.43m plus interest. [read post]
20 Feb 2024, 5:00 am
Contact the Law Office of Peter A. [read post]
20 Feb 2024, 5:00 am
Contact the Law Office of Peter A. [read post]
7 May 2020, 3:58 am
Amy Howe analyzes yesterday’s argument in Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. [read post]
7 Feb 2022, 3:00 am
In the earlier patent infringement action (“Neurim v Mylan 2020”), Neurim asserted EP 1 441 702 (“EP 702”), a patent that protected the use of melatonin for treating a certain type of insomnia. [read post]
17 May 2020, 10:13 am
(Spoiler alert: not a happy ending, this time).United States v. [read post]
17 Oct 2016, 10:48 am
Peter Smith (Business Valuation Expert Witness). [read post]
1 Jul 2017, 4:30 am
Trump and Hawaii v. [read post]
31 Oct 2013, 4:00 am
Smith v. [read post]
25 Aug 2014, 9:35 am
Pritchard v. [read post]
22 Oct 2016, 2:40 pm
Brian v. [read post]
18 Jun 2018, 2:48 pm
Fraser & Angela V. [read post]
26 Jun 2020, 6:19 am
The 2011 working group on fibers and dusts thus sported lawsuit industry acolytes such as Peter F. [read post]
13 Aug 2015, 8:02 am
“New Orleans Prosecutorial Disclosure in Practice after Connick v. [read post]
5 Apr 2007, 5:07 am
The matter came before Mr Justice Peter Smith who had to decide, as a preliminary issue, whether the Fund was allowed to do so. [read post]
7 Oct 2011, 3:39 am
Peter S. [read post]
22 Aug 2016, 12:08 pm
Erik Heath of Duckworth Peters, and Yelp’s Reply. [read post]
21 Jan 2009, 11:14 pm
Supreme Court issued its ruling in Roe v. [read post]
