Search for: "Day v. United Securities Corporation"
Results 1241 - 1260
of 1,490
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Nov 2023, 5:05 am
AXA Art Insurance Corporation v. [read post]
4 Jul 2024, 9:05 pm
Securities and Exchange Commission or my fellow Commissioners. [read post]
13 Mar 2009, 4:00 am
(Securing Innovation) PriorSmart.com search tool, tracking patent documents (Competitive Info) (Patently-O) Patent damages as an incentive to transact (IP finance) IPscore, new patent evaluation toy (IP finance) Patent portfolios can pull companies out of financial rut (Law360) Global - Copyright Expanding the public domain: part zero (Creative Commons) Australia Pioneering decision on non-use: Pioneer Computers Australia Pty Limited v Pioneer KK… [read post]
2 Apr 2014, 4:00 am
v=uo35O1AJOfg [read post]
5 Jan 2022, 9:29 am
In contrast, the United States did not even begin scheduled air mail service until 1918. [read post]
7 May 2018, 3:52 am
On the same day there [read post]
4 Dec 2013, 9:07 am
Fund managers should contact their tax advisers and legal counsel to assess whether their corporate structure is ideally configured to reduce the impact of this 3.8% tax. [read post]
26 Jun 2012, 6:14 am
v=eTnHjYOFuB4"} ) CITIZENS UNITED WON'T GET SECOND LOOK Arizona's law wasn't all the high court tackled. [read post]
8 Jun 2009, 2:00 am
(Class 46) India Chennai IP Appellate Board: Well-known trademarks - consumer recollection is key: Societe des Produits Nestle SA v Jai ram (International Law Office) Bombay High Court rules on the infringement of copyright in drawings: Indiana Gratings Private Limited & Anr v Anand Udyog Fabricators Private Limited & Ors (Spicy IP) Is ‘science’ essential for creating patent lawyers: some ‘general’ thoughts (Spicy… [read post]
8 Jun 2009, 2:00 am
(Class 46) India Chennai IP Appellate Board: Well-known trademarks - consumer recollection is key: Societe des Produits Nestle SA v Jai ram (International Law Office) Bombay High Court rules on the infringement of copyright in drawings: Indiana Gratings Private Limited & Anr v Anand Udyog Fabricators Private Limited & Ors (Spicy IP) Is ‘science’ essential for creating patent lawyers: some ‘general’ thoughts (Spicy… [read post]
19 Mar 2021, 5:41 pm
United StatesParler v. [read post]
21 Feb 2011, 6:45 pm
See, e.g., United States v. [read post]
8 Apr 2008, 9:47 am
Inc. v. [read post]
28 Mar 2008, 6:00 am
: (IPEG),Proponents: Slow better than poor for WIPO Development Agenda: (Intellectual Property Watch),Chatham House Rule comes to WIPO Development Agenda: (IP Updates),New campaign by a group of Second Life Avatars to raise awareness of the ‘theft’ of virtual items: (IPKat), (Patry Copyright Blog),World IP Day is on the way: (IPKat),Watch for IP leaks from publications: (Securing Innovation),Lessig’s (Government) FOSS market: (IPcentral.info),Notions… [read post]
29 Apr 2008, 7:13 am
Rittweger, No. 05-3600, 05-3766, 05-3769 Conviction of multiple defendants for conspiracy to commit securities fraud, wire fraud, and commercial bribery, using facilities of interstate commerce to carry on and facilitate commercial bribery, wire fraud, and securities fraud is affirmed over claims that: 1) the district court erred by denying defendants' motion to sever under Fed. [read post]
2 Nov 2009, 9:22 pm
Relation of this Final Rule to the July 2, 2009, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking V. [read post]
9 Jul 2018, 8:07 am
CCPA surely will be a windfall for privacy and corporate lawyers. [read post]
7 Mar 2008, 2:00 am
UK Ltd clarifies law on keywords and sponsored search results: (IPKat), (Class 46), (Out-Law), Discussion of the End Software Patents initiative: (Peter Zura's 271 Patent Blog), (IAM), (IAM), (Patent Prospector), (IAM), (Securing Innovation), Global Global - General IP valuation – a Pandora’s box? [read post]
29 Dec 2016, 2:18 pm
Co. v. [read post]
3 May 2007, 10:20 am
It is also ultra vires under well-established law.The seminal case applying the municipal cost recovery rule (sometimes also called the "free public services doctrine") is a sixty-year old Supreme Court case called United States v. [read post]
