Search for: "J. B. Floyd"
Results 121 - 138
of 138
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Nov 2021, 11:22 am
”) (Breyer, J., concurring). [read post]
11 Jan 2008, 9:00 am
China ought to have known were pirated: (IAM),IFPI v Yahoo judgment - Uncertainty is bad for business: (Experience Not Logic),Court grants ‘well-known' status to B&Q's Chinese trade mark: (Rouse & Co. [read post]
1 Oct 2007, 12:43 pm
Floyd County Includes the cities of Cave Spring and Rome. [read post]
25 Jul 2023, 7:39 am
[B.] [read post]
29 Jan 2009, 4:42 pm
We conclude that, in accordance with the analysis employed by the court in Leroy, section 11-9.3(b-5) does not constitute an impermissible ex post facto law. [read post]
6 Dec 2017, 1:19 pm
Floyd Abrams, New York City, for respondents. [read post]
21 Feb 2024, 7:46 am
But Judge J. [read post]
25 Mar 2024, 5:01 am
But Judge J. [read post]
3 May 2024, 8:11 am
But Judge J. [read post]
6 May 2024, 9:20 am
But Judge J. [read post]
27 Jul 2023, 7:55 am
Editor’s Note: This is part of a multi-part series on the FISA Section 702 reauthorization and reform debate. [read post]
12 Sep 2023, 1:06 pm
B. [read post]
11 Jun 2014, 4:00 am
§ 2680(j). [read post]
16 Aug 2020, 7:01 am
On March 16, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force conducted its first night-time mission in the vicinity of the island, involving J-11 fighters and KJ-500 airborne early warning and control aircraft. [read post]
2 Jul 2013, 1:41 pm
The other day, I was blogging about tags, and somebody asked what are all the tags. [read post]
13 Jun 2008, 3:40 am
Here is IP Think Tank’s weekly selection of top intellectual property news breaking in the blogosphere and internet. [read post]
21 Jul 2008, 10:53 pm
We conclude that, in accordance with the analysis employed by the court in Leroy, section 11-9.3(b-5) does not constitute an impermissible ex post facto law. [read post]
1 Sep 2011, 5:01 pm
In its interlocutory decision T 1068/07 of 25 June 2010, Board 3.3.08 referred the following question to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA): Does a disclaimer infringe A 123(2) if its subject-matter was disclosed as an embodiment of the invention in the application as filed? [read post]
