Search for: "Hoffmann v. Hoffmann"
Results 81 - 100
of 463
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Nov 2017, 2:00 am
The test of dishonesty is as set out by Lord Nicholls in Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan and by Lord Hoffmann in Barlow Clowes… When dishonesty is in question the fact-finding tribunal must first ascertain (subjectively) the actual state of the individual’s knowledge or belief as to the facts. [read post]
8 Nov 2017, 5:29 am
Part 2 covers claims with numerical limits, relevance of the file history, harmonisation, and a vote as to whether the decision in Actavis v Eli Lilly has improved the law. [read post]
24 Aug 2017, 1:34 am
While Roth J. agreed that some aspects of the tort of unlawful means may require refinement (e.g. what constitutes "unlawful" means), he concluded that the only legal issue on application has been determined by Lord Hoffmann in OBG v Allen (with whom the majority agreed): "Unlawful means therefore consists of acts intended to cause loss to the claimant by interfering with the freedom of a third party in a way which is unlawful as against that third… [read post]
17 Aug 2017, 5:38 am
I have students look at the lynching postcards (see the Without Sanctuary website) during a discussion of the legality of lynching.Elizabeth Hoffmann: I show The Road to Brown about the legal and social “paths" leading up to Brown v. [read post]
10 Aug 2017, 9:43 am
Those looking for further enlightenment or having a desire to debate the issue of equivalents with Lord Neuberger himself, Lords Hoffmann and Sumption, and Judges Dr. [read post]
26 Jul 2017, 3:49 am
As explained in paragraph 42 of this judgment, in paragraph 37 of Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd [2005] RPC 9, Lord Hoffmann explained that the doctrine of equivalents had been developed in the United States. [read post]
26 Jul 2017, 3:49 am
As explained in paragraph 42 of this judgment, in paragraph 37 of Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd [2005] RPC 9, Lord Hoffmann explained that the doctrine of equivalents had been developed in the United States. [read post]
17 Jul 2017, 3:39 pm
This GuestKat has noted with interest comments which suggest that this case opens the way to a doctrine of "file wrapper estoppel" in the UK, but wonders whether the case really goes much further than existing UK case law which has admitted reference to the file in cases of "admissions against interest" - see for example Rohm & Haas v Collag [2002] F.S.R. 28 and Furr v Truline [1985] F.S.R. 553. [read post]
13 Jul 2017, 8:47 am
The Court was of the view the Lord Hoffmann in Kirin-Amgen had erred by conflating these two issues into a single question of interpretation. [read post]
13 Jul 2017, 8:47 am
The Court was of the view the Lord Hoffmann in Kirin-Amgen had erred by conflating these two issues into a single question of interpretation. [read post]
12 Jul 2017, 1:34 pm
It is here - the Supreme Court's decision in Eli Lilly v Actavis UK [2017] UKSC 48. [read post]
12 Jul 2017, 7:59 am
Eli Lilly v Actavis UK [2017] UKSC 48This is an important case about whether drugs manufactured by Actavis infringe a European patent of Lilly. [read post]
5 Jul 2017, 1:06 pm
Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., 511 F.3d 506, 509 (5thCir. 2007); Elbaor v. [read post]
1 May 2017, 11:03 am
Facts: This case (Ribeiro et al v. [read post]
1 May 2017, 11:03 am
Facts: This case (Ribeiro et al v. [read post]
27 Apr 2017, 1:30 am
John's University School of LawKatherine Schostok, DePaul University College of LawAllison Winnike, University of Houston Law Center 5:00 – 7:00 PM Welcome Reception – Henson Atrium, Georgia State Law Friday, June 9, 20177:30 – 8:15 AM Registration & Breakfast – Henson Atrium, Georgia State Law 8:15 – 8:30 AM Opening Remarks – Ceremonial Courtroom, Georgia State LawWendy Hensel, Interim Dean and Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of… [read post]
10 Apr 2017, 3:47 am
Additional Resources:McCarrell v. [read post]
1 Mar 2017, 9:30 am
As summarised in an Isle of Man judgment, the scheme resembled a “Ponzi” scheme in that apparent repayments to HC were in fact funded in a circular way by HC itself: see paragraph 30 of the judgment of His Honour Deemster Corlett, Heather Capital Limited v KPMG Audit LLC, 17 November 2015. [9] A third party, Nicholas Levene, was a participant in the scheme. [read post]
5 Feb 2017, 2:35 pm
In Beamon v. [read post]
20 Nov 2016, 6:36 pm
" ICS v West Bromwich (per Lord Hoffmann).So it's not what you, your client or the other side think or wished it means. [read post]
