Search for: "Smith v. Day" Results 841 - 860 of 4,464
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Apr 2017, 6:59 am by Brian Cordery
The final session of the day was on remedies. [read post]
27 May 2010, 5:02 pm by Colin O'Keefe
Today, we have insight on legal stories surrounding multiple technology companies: Facebook, Netscape and Google are all seeing discussion on the LexBlog Network. 121 posts on the LexBlog Network today; one more day before the three day weekend, let's beat that total tomorrow. [read post]
13 Jul 2015, 3:51 am
 Nikos tells all.* Convatec v Smith & Nephew: why the Court of Appeal was wrongThe IPKat has reported already twice on the interesting Court of Appeal, England and Wales, decision in Smith & Nephew Plc v ConvaTec Technologies Inc, relating to ConvaTec's patent EP (UK) 1,343,510 on silverised wound dressings (see Jeremy here and Darren here). [read post]
8 Jun 2017, 4:04 pm by INFORRM
X v Attorney-General The Jameel doctrine got a further head of steam just eleven days after Katz J’s judgment, when Simon France J struck out several pleaded ‘reputational claims’. [read post]
8 Apr 2012, 8:55 am
Of course, there is still that pesky little confusion test for Gucci, which in the Second Circuit is the Polaroid Crop v Polarad Elecs Corp (1961) test (see test here as applied to another famous shoe battle, Louboutin v YSL). [read post]
19 Sep 2014, 4:42 am by Terry Hart
The Cult of Jeff Koons by Jed Perl (via CultureCrash) — Jeff Koons is known in the copyright world as a defendant in at least two major decisions involving appropriation art (Rogers v Koons and Blanch v Koons). [read post]
25 Feb 2020, 4:59 pm by INFORRM
The woman identified by the newspaper as Annabelle Smith experienced a common reaction and, monitored by Hindley, was back to normal in days. [read post]
26 May 2017, 6:29 am by John Elwood
Sure, it was a good day for patent nerds as the court granted in one-time relist SAS Institute Inc. v. [read post]
13 Apr 2022, 4:30 am by Michael C. Dorf
The next day, in a shadow docket order in Austin v. [read post]