Search for: "In re Dennis P." Results 101 - 120 of 274
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Jul 2016, 1:54 pm by Eugene Volokh
A very helpful and interesting paper by my colleague Sam Bray — one of the nation’s top remedies scholars — which he kindly agreed to let me pass along (also available in PDF here): equity, n. [read post]
28 Jun 2016, 6:41 am by Dennis Crouch
by Dennis Crouch The Supreme Court has completed its patent law business for the 2015 term and will re-open decision making in September 2016. [read post]
3 Jun 2016, 6:40 am by Dennis Crouch
by Dennis Crouch Look for opinions in Halo/Stryker and Cuozzo by the end June 2016. [read post]
18 May 2016, 8:19 am by Dennis Crouch
NuVasive, Inc., No. 15-85 (Commil re-hash – mens rea requirement for inducement) 3. [read post]
3 May 2016, 1:42 am by Dennis Crouch
NuVasive, Inc., No. 15-85 (Commil re-hash – mens rea requirement for inducement) 3. [read post]
18 Apr 2016, 9:58 am by Dennis Crouch
by Dennis Crouch Cuozzo: Prof Mann provides his preview of the April 25 oral arguments in Cuozzo v. [read post]
1 Apr 2016, 8:22 am by Dennis Crouch
NuVasive, Inc., No. 15-85 (Commil re-hash – mens rea requirement for inducement) 3. [read post]
17 Mar 2016, 2:45 am by Dennis Crouch
by Dennis Crouch President Obama has announced his nomination of Merrick Garland to become the next Supreme Court Justice. [read post]
4 Mar 2016, 12:25 pm by Dennis Crouch
Lee, Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office, No. 15-326 I/P Engine, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Feb 2016, 8:57 am by Dennis Crouch
Lee, Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office, No. 15-326 I/P Engine, Inc. v. [read post]
20 Jan 2016, 8:00 am by Dennis Crouch
Lee, Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office, No. 15-326 I/P Engine, Inc. v. [read post]
12 Jan 2016, 11:39 am by Dennis Crouch
Lee, Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office, No. 15-326 I/P Engine, Inc. v. [read post]
30 Oct 2015, 5:14 pm
  Privity doesn’t exist in the prescription medical product realm, so the Dixon reasoning should eliminate such actions in such cases in New York.There are other aspects of Dixon – express warranty (pp. 5-7), third-party beneficiary (pp. 10-12), Magnuson-Moss (p. 12), and consumer protection (pp. 13-17) – but they’re not very pertinent to drug/device litigation.We’d like to thank Jeff Yeatman of DLA Piper for sending Dixon to us. [read post]
3 Jul 2015, 4:00 am by Ian Mackenzie
National Energy Board, 1978 1 S.C.R. 369, at p. 394, is still routinely cited by courts and tribunals. [read post]
15 Mar 2015, 9:01 pm by Neil Cahn
Vantine, also decided February 26, 2015, the Third Department modified the award of Madison County Supreme Court Justice Dennis K. [read post]