Search for: "State v. Lord"
Results 1161 - 1180
of 4,049
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Jul 2017, 4:38 pm
In one recent case, Bollea v. [read post]
26 Jul 2017, 4:05 pm
Open justice requires and means scrutiny of the state. [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]
26 Jul 2017, 2:00 am
Finally, the charging of higher fees for certain types of claim more likely to be brought by women was indirectly discriminatory, with the measures not justified as a proportionate means of achieving the stated aims of the fees regime. [read post]
25 Jul 2017, 1:56 am
He says that is not something on which there is a margin of appreciation to the state. [read post]
24 Jul 2017, 1:35 am
The Lord Advocate states he will address alternatives. [read post]
24 Jul 2017, 1:00 am
R (HC) v Secretary of State for Works and Pensions & Ors, heard 21-22 Jun 2017. [read post]
19 Jul 2017, 6:57 am
(R (Kiarie) v Secretary of State for the Home Department ¶ 77, supra.). [read post]
19 Jul 2017, 3:10 am
The appellant was named and the case name is now Khuja (formerly known as PNM) v Times Newspapers. [read post]
19 Jul 2017, 2:18 am
Lord Kerr and Lord Wilson conclude that there was no basis for the presumption and, accordingly, the judge erred in dismissing the appellant’s application relying on that observation. [read post]
18 Jul 2017, 9:24 am
Governor Brown has called it “the Lord’s work. [read post]
17 Jul 2017, 3:39 pm
As noted in the first post, the Supreme Court reformulated the Improver questions, originally posed by Lord Hoffmann when at first instance and subsequently further evaluated by him in the House of Lords in Kirin-Amgen, which thoroughly examined the UK approach to patent claims. [read post]
17 Jul 2017, 1:00 am
R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor, heard 27-28 Mar 2017. [read post]
16 Jul 2017, 4:23 pm
This wrongly states that Impress made the damages award. [read post]
14 Jul 2017, 11:58 am
The Murr family were the plaintiffs in Murr v. [read post]
14 Jul 2017, 2:40 am
Lord Kerr and Baroness Hale dissented from the majority. [read post]
13 Jul 2017, 4:05 pm
Dicta in Regina v. [read post]
13 Jul 2017, 10:00 am
First Division, Inner House, Court of Session Lord Carloway (President), Lord Menzies and Lady Clark of Calton refused the appeals. [read post]
13 Jul 2017, 8:47 am
The judgment comes as a surprise, as the previously established UK case law had over time firmly done away with the idea of ‘pith and marrow’ infringement, culminating in the seminal House of Lords judgment in Kirin-Amgen v Hoechst Marion Roussel [2004] UKHL 46. [read post]
