Search for: "Dupont v. United States"
Results 101 - 120
of 240
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Jul 2013, 5:00 am
Surgidev Corp., 899 P.2d 576, 591 (N.M. 1995) (“evidence of compliance with FDA regulations was properly submitted to the jury for consideration”); United Blood Services v. [read post]
27 Jun 2013, 2:58 am
United States Postal Service v. [read post]
4 Jun 2013, 8:45 am
(U.S., Feb. 27, 2013); Comcast v. [read post]
3 May 2013, 2:53 am
The district court rejected B&B's contention that the TTAB decision should be given preclusive effect on the likelihood of confusion issue and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit agreed. [read post]
22 Jan 2013, 4:10 am
There, the question was whether the logo was an official insignia falling with Section 2(b), i.e., was it “of the same class as the flag or coats of arms of the United States. [read post]
9 Jan 2013, 6:06 pm
” The report includes the major export enforcement, trade secret theft, economic espionage, and embargo-related criminal prosecutions handled by the United States Department of Justice between January 2007 and December 2012. [read post]
7 Jan 2013, 7:02 am
DuPont de Nemours and Co. v. [read post]
31 Dec 2012, 3:29 pm
Noah Kravitz), LinkedIn (Eagle v. [read post]
31 Dec 2012, 3:29 pm
Noah Kravitz), LinkedIn (Eagle v. [read post]
31 Dec 2012, 9:53 am
DuPont's Judgment Against Kolon Industries. [read post]
29 Nov 2012, 1:23 pm
[T]he United States [FDA] requires the tablet manufacturers . . . to account for and warn of a drug’s properties. [read post]
26 Nov 2012, 2:38 am
” Virginia: As the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia recently made clear in JTH Tax, Inc. v. [read post]
2 Nov 2012, 4:00 am
Feel free to e-mail me if you have suggestions for an upcoming list.GPS / JonesThe Missed Opportunity of United States v. [read post]
22 Aug 2012, 10:57 am
(“DuPont”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 5:25 am
E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., 657 F. [read post]
15 Jun 2012, 12:19 pm
”) United States v. [read post]
24 Apr 2012, 6:24 am
To resolve this problem, DuPont and the union agreed to a process whereby unit employees had to choose to either stay with DuPont and transfer to another unit, or stay in the unit and be covered by a new CBA. [read post]
18 Apr 2012, 6:11 am
United States (Case No. 11-318 (Court of Claims)). [read post]
18 Apr 2012, 6:11 am
United States (Case No. 11-318 (Court of Claims)). [read post]
17 Apr 2012, 2:59 pm
(DuPont), did not possess the requisite monopoly power over the para-aramid fiber market in the United States to have engaged in monopolization, the court held. [read post]
