Search for: "People v. Grant"
Results 8901 - 8920
of 16,996
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Dec 2014, 5:06 am
In my experience of discussing the law of product-by-process claims with a large number of people, it is important to have in mind the right kind of claim. [read post]
12 Dec 2014, 5:04 am
Finally, the Class 99 design law blog chronicles a further recent refusal of the Intellectual Property Enteprise Court, England and Wales, to grant "bonus damages". [read post]
12 Dec 2014, 3:52 am
Finally, in my role as reporter, I’ll tell you that the court granted most of ATL’s motion to dismiss, but held that parts of Counts I, III, and V survive. [read post]
11 Dec 2014, 6:44 am
The basis for this was most recently stated in Owenby v. [read post]
10 Dec 2014, 1:00 pm
Erznoznik v. [read post]
10 Dec 2014, 9:30 am
In a recent case stemming from a car accident, Dion v. [read post]
10 Dec 2014, 9:00 am
And here’s one application of the law, from Thomas v. [read post]
10 Dec 2014, 6:41 am
Some 8,000 people had to be tested for the disease after her years-long actions were discovered. [read post]
10 Dec 2014, 5:29 am
Coughlin, supra.The trial judge held a hearing on Coughlin’s motion, and eventually granted it. [read post]
10 Dec 2014, 12:31 am
(It is not freely available, but he went so far as to write an article with Gregor Grant on the matter: The Protection Conferred by Product-by-Process Claims; Grant, Gregor; Smyth, Darren; European Intellectual Property Review (2010), volume 32, issue 12, p. 635-643). [read post]
9 Dec 2014, 7:06 pm
See Kohl v. [read post]
9 Dec 2014, 11:37 am
Article [of Amendment 9]—[The Rights Retained by the People] Section 1. [read post]
9 Dec 2014, 4:54 am
As OHIM pointed out in its argument summarised in paragraph 37 above, that consideration underlies not only Directive 89/104 and Regulation No 40/94, with regard to trade mark law, but also Regulation No 6/2002, in relation to designs.Accordingly, trade mark rights are not intended to provide monopoly protection for the technical aspect of an invention for which another registered right has been granted and expired, Christoph explained. [read post]
8 Dec 2014, 11:53 am
The grant of a new trial is going to be reversed. [read post]
8 Dec 2014, 9:50 am
Knowles explained in part 2 of our interview that in BMS v. [read post]
8 Dec 2014, 6:33 am
Three people in the bar ended up dead, and two others seriously wounded in the resulting gunfire. [read post]
8 Dec 2014, 5:52 am
United Tactical Systems v. [read post]
7 Dec 2014, 3:10 pm
The new kidnapping offence would be committed where a person, D: without lawful authority or reasonable excuse; intentionally uses force or the threat of force; in order to take another person V, or otherwise cause them to move in his company. [read post]
7 Dec 2014, 5:14 am
This was answered in a 1973, Houston Court of Appeals [1st Dist.] case styled Hamaker v. [read post]
5 Dec 2014, 11:21 am
In a 1977 ruling, in Wooley v. [read post]
