Search for: "Evans v. US" Results 801 - 820 of 2,191
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Jun 2014, 5:33 am by Kevin Smith, J.D.
This is important, because in the Georgia State appeal the plaintiffs are arguing that because Judge Evans found that copying for electronic reserves was not transformative, she was in error to still find fair use. [read post]
7 May 2014, 2:48 pm by Dennis Crouch
An explanation of the significance of new effect in established patent law can be found as long ago as 1822 in Evans v Eaton 20 U.S. 356 (1822) and its evidential nature was explained by Justice Bradley in Webster Loom v Higgins105 US 580 (1881), subsequently approved e.g. by Justice Brown in Carnegie Steel v Cambria Iron Co 185 US 402 (1902): It may be laid down as a general rule, though perhaps not an invariable one, that if a new combination… [read post]
11 Nov 2006, 5:08 am
Commenting on Judge Easterbrook's opinion this week In Wallace, Daniel v. [read post]
25 Dec 2007, 8:57 pm
Statutory Protections v. [read post]
16 Nov 2009, 4:51 am
(IPEG)   United Kingdom EWHC: Registry decision leads to High Court estoppels: William Evans and Susan Mary Evans (trading as Firecraft) v Focal Point Fires plc (Marques) Lord Hoffmann on patentability of software and business methods (IPKat) Making life more comfy for designers? [read post]
16 Nov 2009, 4:51 am
(IPEG) United Kingdom EWHC: Registry decision leads to High Court estoppels: William Evans and Susan Mary Evans (trading as Firecraft) v Focal Point Fires plc (Marques) Lord Hoffmann on patentability of software and business methods (IPKat) Making life more comfy for designers? [read post]
16 Nov 2009, 4:51 am
(IPEG) United Kingdom EWHC: Registry decision leads to High Court estoppels: William Evans and Susan Mary Evans (trading as Firecraft) v Focal Point Fires plc (Marques) Lord Hoffmann on patentability of software and business methods (IPKat) Making life more comfy for designers? [read post]
14 Apr 2014, 9:30 pm by Dan Ernst
  I mentioned my use of Butler’s and Roberts’s docket books in a post on Crowell v. [read post]