Search for: "Johnson v. Arnold"
Results 81 - 100
of 131
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 May 2014, 5:00 am
The new cases are Arnold v. [read post]
22 May 2014, 7:15 am
Stiviano's affiliation with Magic Johnson, and denigrates minority professional basketball players for the Clippers African-Americans and other minorities in general. [read post]
16 May 2014, 8:58 am
” Now, anyone who knows anything about patent judges will know that they love experts who give their evidence in a moderate and balanced fashion and are willing to concede points where it is reasonable to do so – see for example Mr Justice Arnold’s comments about Professor Hunter in GUK v Yeda. [read post]
9 Feb 2014, 2:27 pm
which causes actual damage to the business or goodwill of the trader bringing the action.In the recent ‘ Vodkat’ case, Diageo North America Inc v Intercontinental Brands (ICB) Ltd [2010] EWHC 17 (Ch), Arnold J held that "vodka" is a term that is capable of distinguishing a particular class and quality of product. [read post]
27 Dec 2013, 1:27 am
One such ruling is Actavis UK Ltd v Eli Lilly & Company [2013] EWHC 3749 (Pat), a decision of Mr Justice Arnold in the Patents Court, England and Wales, on 27 November 2013. [read post]
12 Nov 2013, 6:17 am
His recent cases include Community trade marks, registered design and enforcement issues in Starbucks (HK) Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting plc and Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc (and here). [read post]
6 Nov 2013, 10:40 am
Following a full and magisterial analysis of the relevant law, Arnold J dismissed the application. [read post]
2 Sep 2013, 4:29 am
Panellists are Mr Justice Arnold, Chris Wadlow, Phillip Johnson and Birgit Clark. [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 2:53 pm
Arnold J was entitled to conclude, given the lack of clarity as to the molecular weight of the material in the Johnson trial, that the skilled team would not have considered it worthwhile to include the lower weight material in further testing.Yoda * Arnold J was not correct to hold that, if Yeda's patent specification made a technical effect plausible, it was not open to Mylan to mount a challenge to the existence of that effect by the use of later evidence. [read post]
2 Jul 2013, 1:41 pm
Strangelove" (16) "Flight of the Conchords" (4) "Game Change" (2) "Get Smart" (1) "Gran Torino" (10) "Grey Gardens" (13) "I Shouldn't Be Alive" (4) "Limelight" (3) "Meet the Press" (20) "Moby Dick" (5) "My Dinner with Andre" (34) "Mystery Science Theater" (2) "Project Runway" (78) "Romy and Michele's High School Reunion" (3) "Seinfeld" (72) "Sex and the City" (14) "Slacker" (11) "Slumdog Millionaire" (16) "SNL" (60) "Sopranos" (50) "South Park" (71) "Star Trek" (12) "Star Wars" (25) "Survivor" (50)… [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 6:43 am
It is therefore insufficient: see Novartis AG v Johnson & Johnson Medical Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 1039, [2011] ECC 10 at [77]. [read post]
7 May 2013, 8:53 am
This was explained by Kitchin J in Novartis AG v Johnson & Johnson Medical Ltd [2009] EWHC 1671 (Pat) at [122] as follows, having cited a passage from G2/98: “I discern from this passage that the EPO considers it is permissible to afford different priority dates to different parts of a patent claim where those parts represent a limited number of clearly defined alternative subject-matters and those alternative subject-matters have been disclosed (and are enabled)… [read post]
18 Apr 2013, 3:37 am
On the facts, Arnold J decided that Resolution was not bound by privity of interest with any of the earlier parties. [read post]
19 Mar 2013, 6:36 pm
On March 12, 2013, Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Judge Arnold New issued a Post-Koken decision on venue in the case of Fish v. [read post]
11 Mar 2013, 10:18 pm
Next it was Aparajita’s turn to come up with an incisive case review of Lupin Ltd. v. [read post]
11 May 2012, 3:42 pm
” Johnson v. [read post]
30 Apr 2012, 11:19 am
Colyer, Arnold W. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 1:00 pm
Earlier today, I had the pleasure of visiting Professor Jack Goldsmith’s “Foreign Relations Law” class, which is studying Hamdan v. [read post]
2 Jan 2012, 8:11 am
The Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that a prospective juror with actual bias, such as an opinion that the defendant is guilty, is qualified to serve on a jury as long as gives an unequivocal assurance she can be fair and impartial (People v Nicholas, 98 NY2d 749, 751 [2002]; People v Arnold, 96 NY2d 358, 362 [2001]; People v Johnson, 94 NY2d 600, 614 [2000]). [read post]
3 Dec 2011, 9:56 am
Supreme Court decision in Stern v. [read post]
