Search for: "United States v. Holder"
Results 1361 - 1380
of 4,280
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 May 2017, 9:31 pm
” This is true even if A’s sale to B occurs outside the United States. [read post]
30 May 2017, 4:05 pm
On the trademark front, the law is more complicated and depends on whether the merchandise is materially different than the products sold in the United States and on whether the trademark was applied outside the United States under the control or ownership of the U.S. trademark holder. [read post]
30 May 2017, 12:34 pm
An “aggravated felony” conviction generally requires mandatory removal of an immigrant from the United States and renders the immigrant ineligible for most forms of relief from removal. [read post]
30 May 2017, 9:53 am
The Supreme Court's broad and inclusive approach to exhaustion simply doesn't allow any kind of end-run around the exhaustion doctrine through a first sale outside the United States as in one of the two issues relevant in the Lexmark case. [read post]
29 May 2017, 10:00 pm
Post By Blog Staff A United States patent entitles the patent holder to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling [its] invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States. [read post]
29 May 2017, 7:31 am
’ United States v. [read post]
26 May 2017, 10:15 am
The “it” in Giuliani’s explanation could also refer to pausing certain immigration temporarily, in order to assess whether the United States’ current criteria for screening immigrants actually work. [read post]
26 May 2017, 10:12 am
IRAP v. [read post]
25 May 2017, 3:33 pm
Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 793 (2008); therefore, “the Government’s interest in combating terrorism is an urgent objective of the highest order,” Holder v. [read post]
24 May 2017, 2:56 pm
The most thoroughly developed of these proposes a legislative restructuring of copyright exhaustion in a flexible, multi-factor format, in part modeled on the United States’ fair use doctrine. [read post]
23 May 2017, 2:00 pm
Kraft Foods Group Brands, No. 16-341, the United States Supreme Court significantly changed the geography where future patent infringement suits can be filed. [read post]
23 May 2017, 2:00 pm
Kraft Foods Group Brands, No. 16-341, the United States Supreme Court significantly changed the geography where future patent infringement suits can be filed. [read post]
23 May 2017, 9:30 am
” As the district court noted in United States v. [read post]
22 May 2017, 3:01 pm
Alabama and Alabama Democratic Conference v. [read post]
21 May 2017, 9:01 pm
Mgt. v Spencer. [read post]
19 May 2017, 12:23 pm
Co. v. [read post]
19 May 2017, 9:13 am
As Quinta and I explained: Under United States v. [read post]
16 May 2017, 8:03 am
” I think the answer is exactly what Trump said it meant: keeping terrorists out of the United States. [read post]
16 May 2017, 7:30 am
The revised EO applies only to noncitizen visa applicants with no previous ties to the United States—a group with scant, if any, statutory or constitutional rights. [read post]
15 May 2017, 9:00 am
The United States Supreme Court came out with a new patent law decision in Impression Products, Inc. v. [read post]
