Search for: "In re PHILLIPS" Results 1221 - 1240 of 2,097
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Sep 2015, 3:05 pm
“But a top-to-bottom re-examination of whether patents and other forms of intellectual property protection actually do their job, and even whether they deserve to exist, is long overdue. [read post]
2 Jan 2015, 7:04 am
  “We’re honoured to recognize their hard work and dedication to the profession by appointing them as Queen’s Counsel. [read post]
12 Jul 2015, 1:54 pm
If you'd like to attend, just email Jeremy Phillips at jjip@btinternet.com with the subject line "Enforcement".ORoPO: any experiences, any thoughts? [read post]
21 Jan 2013, 4:51 am by David J. DePaolo
It was thought that everyone was on the same team, even though it was clear from disclosures and other communications that the lawyer hired by the carrier was the lawyer for the carrier.This assumption was, and is, erroneous.As reported this morning in WorkCompCentral news, a pair of state supreme court cases from Montana and Texas are making a distinction between counsel for the carrier, the administrator, and the employer.Texas Supreme Court's decision last June in In Re XL Specialty… [read post]
1 Dec 2014, 9:42 am
You can peruse its contents here and read the guest editorial on federalisation and local IP law-making by Phillip Johnson here. [read post]
3 Aug 2017, 4:30 am by Ben
Brody of Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP here on Lexology that analyses this and the DMCA claim. [read post]
9 Dec 2006, 11:27 pm
  They're not people who waste time questioning why they're doing what they're doing. [read post]
2 Oct 2021, 4:22 am by SHG
But if you don’t subscribe to the view that we’re doomed, then the argument dies a brutal, painful death by suicide. [read post]
10 Nov 2007, 9:26 am
PHILLIPS: I was just looking for the case of the day, Your Honor, actually. [read post]
20 Mar 2012, 7:05 am by S
First, the Court of Appeal has re-iterated just how high the threshold is. [read post]
20 Mar 2012, 7:05 am by S
First, the Court of Appeal has re-iterated just how high the threshold is. [read post]
2 Dec 2011, 5:41 pm by Gritsforbreakfast
Phillip Lyons spoke up specifically to say they planned to re-include much of the detail that had been omitted from an earlier draft circulated to the working group they'd convened in Huntsville, much of which had been relegated to an appendix. [read post]
17 May 2016, 10:46 am by SHG
Because they’re police, doing police stuff. [read post]