Search for: "Wand v. State"
Results 81 - 100
of 113
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Jun 2011, 7:10 am
United States v. [read post]
10 Jun 2011, 4:09 pm
of Cal. v. [read post]
6 Jun 2011, 8:36 am
Sessoms v Runnels, No. 08-17790 (6-3-11)(Tallman with Rawlinson; dissent by B. [read post]
12 May 2011, 12:43 am
The Opposition filed against Magic Wand actually cites one of these cases, asserting that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals “affirmed the finding that ENTREPRENEUR has become a strong mark” in EMI, Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Feb 2011, 8:19 am
Wand 330 North Bench St. [read post]
6 Dec 2010, 2:36 am
Medinol Limited (EPLAW) EWHC (Pat): Costs order knocks spots off pimple patent: Select Healthcare v Cromptons (PatLit) EWPCC: ‘User’ basis available for assessment of trade mark damages: National Guild of Removers & Storers Ltd v Silveria (t/a C S Movers) (IP finance) Do it by the book: case management and questions for reference: Westwood v Knight; SAS Institute v World Programming (IPKat) EWCA finds Grimme’s agricultural machinery patent… [read post]
17 Nov 2010, 8:00 am
In the case of United States v. [read post]
16 Nov 2010, 9:01 am
Hands-free control of your smart phone not only makes good sense, it is the law in more and more states. [read post]
15 Nov 2010, 10:09 am
In United States v. [read post]
13 Oct 2010, 8:31 pm
It was my plan to write about Billy Wayne Coble, more precisely, to write about the opinion in Billy Wayne Coble v. [read post]
17 Sep 2010, 7:33 am
After Bridge v. [read post]
13 Aug 2010, 12:46 pm
Ltd. v. [read post]
28 Apr 2010, 9:26 pm
ALZA Corp. v. [read post]
27 Apr 2010, 2:01 pm
Alza v. [read post]
3 Nov 2009, 8:58 pm
Pty Ltd. v. [read post]
27 Sep 2009, 8:37 am
In Virginia, courts must consider the following in determining whether specific jurisdiction should be asserted: "(1) the extent to which the defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the State; (2) whether the plaintiffs' claims arise out of those activities directed at the State; and (3) whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction would be constitutionally reasonable" (citing Consulting Eng'rs Corp. v. [read post]
27 Sep 2009, 7:37 am
In Virginia, courts must consider the following in determining whether specific jurisdiction should be asserted: "(1) the extent to which the defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the State; (2) whether the plaintiffs' claims arise out of those activities directed at the State; and (3) whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction would be constitutionally reasonable" (citing Consulting Eng'rs Corp. v. [read post]
20 Sep 2009, 11:07 pm
The prior art disclosed blenders with structurally similar stirring wands that were used to break up or dislodge air pockets. [read post]
3 Sep 2009, 8:25 pm
See United States v. [read post]
11 Mar 2009, 1:08 pm
(MPEP 2164.01, citing Callicrate v. [read post]
