Search for: "Canning v. FCA US LLC." Results 121 - 134 of 134
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Dec 2014, 5:00 am
”  Huck even used a car analogy similar to the one we used in describing the potentially vast scope of non-manufacture liability. [read post]
8 May 2010, 8:53 am by INFORRM
  His (perhaps now unfashionable) view is summed up by a passage he quotes from a  RA v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 130. [read post]
28 Dec 2015, 2:51 am by Ben
In one of a number of 'food' cases this year, A federal judge told a Cleveland restaurateur that food recipes can't be protected by copyright law: Judge Patricia A Gaughan said: "The identification of ingredients necessary for the preparation of food is a statement of facts. [read post]
25 Jul 2022, 1:54 am by INFORRM
The appeal against the decision in the defamation claim in Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Limited [2022] FCA 851 was dismissed. [read post]
3 Feb 2021, 5:31 am by Joel R. Brandes
    Factors to be considered in computing Counsel Fee award under FCA §438               In Abizadeh v Abizadeh, --- N.Y.S.3d ----, 2021 WL 191276 (Mem), 2021 N.Y. [read post]
3 Feb 2021, 5:27 am by Joel R. Brandes
    Factors to be considered in computing Counsel Fee award under FCA §438               In Abizadeh v Abizadeh, --- N.Y.S.3d ----, 2021 WL 191276 (Mem), 2021 N.Y. [read post]
27 Mar 2023, 1:25 am by INFORRM
On the same day, O’Callaghan J made an order for costs in the case of Watkins v Tatana [2023] FCA 248, in favour of the Respondents. [read post]
13 Apr 2014, 8:59 am by Barry Sookman
Pfizer Canada Inc., [2012] 3 S.C.R. 625 The patent system is based on a “bargain”, or quid pro quo:  the inventor is granted exclusive rights in a new and useful invention for a limited period in exchange for disclosure of the invention so that society can benefit from this knowledge. [read post]
19 Mar 2012, 3:30 am by INFORRM
What lessons can we learn from Leveson and the hacking scandal? [read post]
29 Jul 2022, 3:33 pm by Edward T. Kang
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit’s 141-page opinion upholding Kapoor’s conviction intact as powerful precedent to use against crooked pharmaceutical executives. [read post]