Search for: "United States v. Ware" Results 121 - 140 of 203
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Oct 2010, 10:02 am by Susan Brenner
[T]he Government . . . expects to prove at trial that there are high-frequency trading systems that may be purchased by securities trading firms, and that Goldman maintains computers in the United States and elsewhere in the world that use its Trading System to conduct trading on world markets. [read post]
30 Sep 2020, 1:01 am by rhapsodyinbooks
Six convictions (known as the Ware defendants) were overturned at the state level for technical trial details. [read post]
8 Jun 2010, 7:24 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
In addition to the actual use of the product described, infringement of an apparatus claim occurs when the invention is, among other things, made or sold in the United States. 35 U.S.C. [read post]
26 Apr 2007, 11:40 am
United States Postal Service (unreported, 2005 FC 1630) decision which addressed the “public authority” issue. [read post]
5 Dec 2022, 12:49 am by INFORRM
 Last week in the courts On 30 November 2022, Julian Knowles J handed down judgement in Ware v French [2022] EWHC 3030 (KB) awarding damages of £90,000, costs and a permanent injunction in favour of the claimant after an undefended trial. [read post]
29 Jul 2010, 5:00 am by Bexis
  That means, of course, to anyone who follows this blog with any regularity at all, that the plaintiffs’ personal injury claims ware subject to express preemption under Riegel v. [read post]
15 May 2015, 3:46 pm
EFF will continue to advocate for a broad application of Section 230 in the United States. [read post]
14 Feb 2021, 4:45 pm by INFORRM
United States Fox News Media former and current hosts Lou Dobbs, Maria Bartiromo and Jeanine Pirro asked a court to dismiss a defamation lawsuit by voting-machine company Smartmatic USA Corp., arguing their coverage of President Trump’s claims the 2020 election was rigged was protected by the First Amendment. [read post]
2 Aug 2014, 8:34 am by John Jascob
The law does not demand good faith from a seller in “those vague commendations of his wares which manifestly are open to difference of opinion,” said Justice Holmes in Deming v. [read post]