Search for: "STATE v KEYS" Results 8421 - 8440 of 20,043
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Aug 2015, 12:35 am by Florian Mueller
But a tipping point may have been reached at which conservation will come to an end even in her district court.A few days ago the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied Samsung's motion to stay issuance of a mandate (pending a Supreme Court petition) following a recent appellate ruling on the first California Apple v. [read post]
16 Apr 2019, 10:23 am by Florian Mueller
I'm typing this while Fish & Richardson's Ruffin Cordell is still delivering Apple's opening statement in the Apple v. [read post]
10 Jan 2022, 6:33 am by John Jascob
While the court granted Morningstar’s motion to dismiss on the second allegation, it found that the SEC stated a claim as to the first and third.Motion to dismiss. [read post]
8 Sep 2017, 10:02 am by Florian Mueller
Only one outlier judge in the UK has so far tried to usurp jurisdiction on a global scale (in Unwired Planet v. [read post]
17 Oct 2014, 12:33 pm by Cindy Cohn
Nothing in the bill is intended to limit or otherwise prevent the use of any type of encryption within the United States. [read post]
28 Jun 2013, 4:48 am by Jon Hyman
Here’s the rest of what I read this week: Discrimination Vance v. [read post]
13 Sep 2018, 2:29 pm by Arina Shulga
  This is the key factor.2 - Does the person engage in solicitation of potential investors? [read post]
4 Apr 2013, 11:20 pm by Florian Mueller
Another amicus curiae brief has been filed in connection with Google's appeal of the FRAND part of Judge Posner's Apple v. [read post]
28 Jun 2013, 4:48 am by Jon Hyman
Here’s the rest of what I read this week: Discrimination Vance v. [read post]
13 Nov 2009, 3:19 pm by WSLL
Summary of Decision issued November 12, 2009 Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court Case Name: Exxon Mobil Corp. v. [read post]
6 Jun 2014, 2:52 pm by Lyle Denniston
Windsor decision late last June striking down a key part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, even though that ruling did not apply to state bans on such marriages. [read post]