Search for: "Contain-A-Way Inc." Results 1541 - 1560 of 7,469
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Oct 2014, 11:36 am by Gene Quinn
Myriad Genetics, Inc., the Federal Court of Australia ruled that Myriad’s claims to isolated DNA are patentable under the laws of Australia. [read post]
13 Nov 2008, 5:55 pm
.), a 28-page, opinion split several ways, Judge Sykes writes: This case requires us to determine whether the defendant, Cadleway Properties, Inc., is a "debt collector" under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. [read post]
20 Jun 2007, 12:52 am
United Parcel Service, Inc. could prove to be one of the most important cases decided this year by the Sixth Circuit, as it greatly expands the class of employment cases that can be removed from state court to federal court. [read post]
8 Sep 2008, 10:05 am
Hoffmann-LaRoche Inc., 2008 WL 3977611 (11th Cir., 8/26/08). [read post]
10 Apr 2012, 9:19 am by Stephen D. Rosenberg
They quickly (relatively speaking, of course, since it takes a long time to get a case from filing through to a trial verdict) conclude that the fees were set and shared in ways that did not properly benefit the participants. [read post]
22 Aug 2012, 1:34 am by Chris Neumeyer
As reported in the Wall Street Journal, notoriously secretive Apple Inc. was forced to divulge many diverse, and fascinating, trade secrets in its closely-watched litigation with Samsung (now in jury deliberation). [read post]
5 Feb 2017, 12:47 pm by Stuart Kaplow
Steyn then added: Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr. [read post]
9 Jul 2010, 3:19 am by Andres
True, many licences contain clauses that when analysed by legal practitioners and scholars may seem doubtful. [read post]
15 Feb 2010, 12:36 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
Nitric oxide is the principal neurotransmitter modulating smooth muscle tone by way of a nonadrenergic/noncholinergic pathway (FF 84, 87, 88). [read post]
29 Mar 2012, 3:04 am by John L. Welch
There was no dispute that as to the immediate meaning of the mark: it informs the consumer that Applicant's goods do not contain ingredients from China.The question, then, was whether the mark is disparaging. [read post]