Search for: "Downing v. Bird" Results 101 - 120 of 496
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Apr 2019, 7:22 am
  This is a different concern to Shingrix where the claim did “necessarily and specifically” (i.e. the test set down by the CJEU in Teva v Gilead) cover the product but included non-medicinal ingredients. [read post]
26 Apr 2019, 3:04 pm
Thankfully, the AmeriKat's paws were able to take a break thanks to Kat friend, Richard Vary (Bird & Bird). [read post]
25 Feb 2019, 10:28 am by Adam Feldman
Breaking these data down into specific issues, we see that many of the repeat dissents or concurrences from orders came in death penalty cases. [read post]
4 Feb 2019, 11:12 am
 TQ Delta v Zyxel battle continues in the UK:  For those interested in some closing arguments in the latest SEP infringement/validity battle in the UK, head down to the Rolls Building end of this week for the latest stage of the TQ Delta v Zyxel litigation before Mr Justice Carr. [read post]
27 Jan 2019, 4:19 pm by INFORRM
  Judgment was handed down on 23 January 2019 ([2019]  EWHC 96 (QB)). [read post]
15 Nov 2018, 3:36 pm
Did Unwired Planet need to first comply with the Huawei v ZTE steps? [read post]
23 Oct 2018, 12:36 pm
  The blurb from AIPPI UK is as follows:Rapid Response: Unwired Planet v Huawei Tuesday 13 November 2018, 5:30 for 6pm start, @Bird & Bird The much-awaited decision from the Court of Appeal in the Unwired Planet v Huawei case was handed down this morning. [read post]
23 Oct 2018, 11:43 am
   The AmeriKat was only able to briefly summarize the findings, so had to rely on her friends at Bird & Bird (sounds like dinner to the AmeriKat...) in the form of Jane Mutimear and Richard Vary who expand on the Court of Appeal's findings as follows:"The Court of Appeal handed down judgment in the Unwired Planet v Huawei appeal this morning (23 October 2018). [read post]
23 Sep 2018, 4:07 pm by INFORRM
The Judge will hand down judgment on costs on 17 September 2018. [read post]
31 Aug 2018, 6:10 am by Barry Sookman
They generally only hold online intermediaries liable for publication of tortious or other illegal material when they cease to be passive intermediaries such as when they continue to host defamatory content after receiving notice that the content is defamatory.[7] Canadian law also enables courts to order online Intermediaries to take down or disable access to illegal materials including to enforce injunctions against online malfeasors, something a recent California Supreme Court has… [read post]