Search for: "Sales v. State"
Results 8361 - 8380
of 21,158
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Feb 2016, 6:00 am
One example is the conviction he secured in the case of People v. [read post]
15 Feb 2016, 10:00 pm
’” And, in Jones v. [read post]
15 Feb 2016, 4:27 pm
Dukes; AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
15 Feb 2016, 8:53 am
However, as state-law, the UCC is trumped by Federal Patent Law which is the source of encumbrance here. [read post]
15 Feb 2016, 3:30 am
LLC v Ocean Suffolk Props. [read post]
12 Feb 2016, 9:24 pm
The sale of articles in the United States under a United States patent cannot be controlled by foreign laws. [read post]
12 Feb 2016, 2:37 pm
On January 13, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument inPuerto Rico v. [read post]
12 Feb 2016, 1:45 pm
General Talking Pictures Corp. v. [read post]
12 Feb 2016, 12:55 pm
Tarver v. [read post]
12 Feb 2016, 12:08 pm
But, in my view, a foreign sale does result in exhaustion if an authorized seller has not explicitly reserved the United States patent rights. [read post]
11 Feb 2016, 2:31 pm
Adams v. [read post]
11 Feb 2016, 7:34 am
RUEDA, Appellant V. [read post]
11 Feb 2016, 6:10 am
The defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted in part (Lott v. [read post]
11 Feb 2016, 5:48 am
In United States v. [read post]
10 Feb 2016, 1:37 pm
Weaver v. [read post]
10 Feb 2016, 4:33 am
Summary judgment was also denied on her Equal Pay Act claim (Hesterberg v. [read post]
9 Feb 2016, 1:37 pm
Weaver v. [read post]
9 Feb 2016, 8:54 am
Rosebud LMS v. [read post]
9 Feb 2016, 6:27 am
Oct. 18, 2002); In re Celexa & Lexapro Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation, 779 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2015); Herazo v. [read post]
9 Feb 2016, 6:07 am
In finding that the mark consisted of the shape that gave the product substantial value, the CJEU stated that this concept was not limited to the shape of products having only artistic or ornamental value and that it also covered products with “essential functional characteristics”. [read post]
