Search for: "United States v. FEDERAL COMPANY" Results 1121 - 1140 of 12,463
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Dec 2019, 4:00 am by Martin Kratz
The Federal Court looked to jurisprudence from the United Kingdom, Cartier International AG v. [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 9:56 pm by Aaron Barkoff
§ 271(e)(1) states: It shall not be an act of infringement to make, use, offer to sell, or sell within the United States . . . a patented invention . . . solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information under a Federal law which regulates the manufacture, use, or sale of drugs . . . . [read post]
4 Feb 2019, 9:55 am by Beth Graham
  In addition, the company also claims the lower court’s decision went against established United States Supreme Court precedent. [read post]
22 Feb 2022, 12:45 pm by Inside Privacy
  The allegations also state that Rovio sends the information to third-party marketing companies. [read post]
20 Aug 2019, 5:39 am by Stephen Lubben
United States, Dominic Barton, McKinsey & Co., Inc. [read post]
27 May 2021, 9:00 am
Read More » Tags: Citizen Suit, Climate Change, Decisions of Note, Energy, Fourth Circuit, Greenhouse Gas, Oil and Gas, Procedure, Refinery, Removal, Supreme Court, United States Supreme Court [read post]
3 Nov 2011, 6:50 am by gstasiewicz
The United States District Court and the United States Court of Appeals previously ruled in favor of the Federal Reserve and dismissed Mr. [read post]
27 Jun 2017, 7:59 am by Kevin LaCroix
Rather than seeking to remove the lawsuit to federal court, Cyan filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, in which the company argued in light of SLUSA that the state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. [read post]
29 Apr 2019, 7:39 pm by Gregory Sisk
Under the doctrine of federal sovereign immunity, no one can sue the United States without its express statutory permission. [read post]
14 Dec 2011, 4:55 pm by Eva Arevuo
Put together by the national coalition, “Move to Amend,” the resolution looks to highlight legal precedent, citing Justice Hugo Black’s 1938 dissenting opinion in Connecticut General Life Insurance Company v. [read post]