Search for: "Little v. Jacobs"
Results 121 - 140
of 457
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Nov 2010, 9:49 pm
In Gerber v Lectra ([1995] RPC 383 at 411), a case that did not relate to ‘offering for sale’ in a database for medicaments as the German and Dutch decisions do, the High Court (Jacob J) ruled that offering a patented product for sale within the term of the patent for supply after the expiry of the patent, does not constitute an infringing act". [read post]
24 May 2017, 5:36 am
So the state courts can get it a little wrong. [read post]
5 Jun 2020, 6:44 am
This asserted justification "warrants little discussion," the Second Circuit (Cabranes, Kearse and Jacobs) writes.Since there is a political overtone to this case, Judge Cabranes drops an interesting footnote to emphasize how party conventions can actually make a difference, even if the party nominee has already been in effect chosen by then. [read post]
24 Feb 2015, 7:50 am
The medial companies can if they want run a little corrective article to place the initial piece in context. [read post]
3 Aug 2016, 7:17 am
Floyd LJ noted that he was reminded of a citation from an old case, Savage v Harris and Sons (1896) 13 RPC 364, which stated that “cases, so far as regards the law, are most useful, but when they are applied to particular facts, they, as a rule, are of little service. [read post]
21 Mar 2020, 12:49 pm
The key to answering this question lies in paragraphs [116] to [119] of Lord Justice Jacob's judgment in Dyson Ltd v Qualtex (UK) Ltd. [read post]
21 Mar 2020, 12:49 pm
The key to answering this question lies in paragraphs [116] to [119] of Lord Justice Jacob's judgment in Dyson Ltd v Qualtex (UK) Ltd. [read post]
2 Feb 2015, 2:20 am
******************************PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO LATENever too late 30 [week ending Sunday 18 January] -- Julia Reda’s EU copyright revolution | GC on trade-marketing bottle shapes in (T-69/14 and T-70/14) | IPKat and BLACA’s event on Sensory copyright | IP Cross-Border Enforcement | US Supreme Court in Teva v Sandoz | On-line copyright infringement in Spain | GC on the ‘Pianissimo’ trade mark for vacuum cleaners… [read post]
11 Sep 2015, 9:50 am
Colo. 2013); Murray v. [read post]
20 May 2015, 7:15 am
My new book, The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. [read post]
31 May 2017, 8:14 am
Grow the fuck up little boy! [read post]
15 Jan 2016, 4:55 am
Cannon v. [read post]
11 Aug 2015, 12:32 pm
D.C. v. [read post]
29 Jun 2013, 12:04 am
After listening to the oral arguments in Adoptive Couple v. [read post]
9 Aug 2013, 7:14 am
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. [read post]
6 Dec 2006, 2:01 am
Nokia, no problemRight: no problem for Nokia, perhaps, but InterDigital feels that a rash of similar actions is likely to be afoot.The IPKat spotted this big Court of Appeal for England and Wales decision (Lords Justices Waller, Carnwath and Jacob) on BAILII yesterday, in Nokia Corporation v InterDigital Technology Corporation [2006] EWCA Civ 1618. [read post]
17 Aug 2010, 6:00 am
The case is Scheffer v. [read post]
11 Oct 2011, 9:57 am
" Rebecca has more on this case, which reminded me a little of the classic Jacob & Young v. [read post]
10 Aug 2013, 6:07 am
In Acosta v Acosta--- F.3d ----, 2013 WL 3970239 (C.A.8 (Minn.)) [read post]
24 Jun 2014, 5:20 am
Jacobs of Greenwire, and Jaclyn Belczyk of JURIST. [read post]
