Search for: "Rands v. State"
Results 121 - 140
of 418
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Feb 2013, 10:59 am
Ambassador, Sandy Rand, who asked me to encourage the Chinese judiciary to enforce non-Chinese [IP] rights as aggressively as Chinese IP rights." [read post]
1 Mar 2011, 9:47 pm
Recall his famous ruling in the movie-industry case of United States v. [read post]
4 Dec 2018, 9:06 pm
” The trial itself will be a “multimillion-rand” case. [read post]
25 Apr 2019, 2:24 pm
Nicholas also set out the position in respect of injunctive relief following the Huawei v ZTE framework. [read post]
11 Mar 2008, 9:22 am
Rand, No. [read post]
29 Aug 2011, 10:04 am
EEOC v. [read post]
29 Aug 2011, 10:04 am
EEOC v. [read post]
16 Mar 2016, 2:31 pm
Rands, 389 U.S. 121, 123 (1967). [5] Sturgeon v. [read post]
2 Oct 2012, 3:32 pm
Furthermore, we conclude that, because "the analysis employed by this [C]ourt in the prior appeal no longer reflects the current state of the law, the doctrine of law of the case should not be invoked to preclude reconsideration of" Charter Oak's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claim for compensatory damages (Szajna v Rand, 131 AD2d 840, 840 [1987]; see Foley v Roche, 86 AD2d 887 [1982], lv denied 56 NY2d 507 [1982]). [read post]
27 Jun 2010, 6:50 pm
Bilski and Rand A. [read post]
26 Feb 2013, 2:23 pm
Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in Maryland v. [read post]
15 Feb 2013, 12:03 pm
Today I was in Mannheim for an IPCom v. [read post]
30 Sep 2015, 9:30 am
The problem stems from an overbroad and poorly monitored federal regulation, upheld by the US Supreme Court in Thornburgh v. [read post]
13 Oct 2005, 7:06 pm
Commonwealth, 78 Pa. 490; Rand v. [read post]
24 Sep 2017, 8:55 am
Several states have done the same. [read post]
28 Jun 2013, 11:05 am
First articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Daubert v. [read post]
22 Dec 2016, 4:20 am
These facts are sufficient to state a claim for promissory estoppel.* Multimedia Patent Trust v. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
By our count, federal judges have trampled over state sovereignty with respect to the heeding presumption in no fewer than eleven states – Alaska, Colorado (despite contrary state-court authority), Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, New York (despite contrary state-court authority), South Dakota, and Wyoming.Finally, because various states have taken quite different approaches to whether a heeding presumption exists at all and… [read post]
10 Dec 2014, 5:29 am
Dresser–Rand Co. v. [read post]
10 Nov 2009, 11:09 am
Supreme Court on Monday considered the issue of what types of technology should be eligible for patent protection when it heard oral arguments in Bilski v. [read post]
