Search for: "Bull v. Bull" Results 141 - 160 of 3,236
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Jul 2015, 2:00 pm
The complaint, filed by Indiana trade secret attorneys for Angie's List, includes the following claims: Count I: Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Count II: Breach of Contract Count III: Tortious Interference with Contract Count IV: Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Count V: Conversion Count VI: Theft Count VII: Unfair Competition Count VIII: Computer Tresspass… [read post]
18 Apr 2016, 12:07 pm
§ 1125(a)(l)(B) Count III: Breach of Fiduciary Duty Count IV: Indiana Unfair Competition and Tortious Interference with a Business Relationship Count V: Tortious Interference with a Prospective Economic Advantage Count VI: Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Count VII: Federal Trademark Infringement Count VIII: Indiana and Illinois Trademark Infringement Landmark seeks equitable relief, damages,… [read post]
8 Mar 2013, 10:10 am
  Practice Tip #2:  The standard for an actual controversy under the Declaratory Judgment Act was most recently addressed by the Supreme Court in MedImmune, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Mar 2012, 9:25 pm by Patent Docs
AstraZeneca AB et al v. [read post]
25 Apr 2012, 8:35 pm by Patent Docs
Purdue Pharma, L.P. et al. v. [read post]
25 Jul 2010, 9:14 pm by Patent Docs
Roche Palo Alto LLC et al. v. [read post]
30 Nov 2012, 6:19 pm by Dan Markel
Volume 16, Number 1 (Autumn 2012) Flip Book Streak Along with an Ambulance Ex Ante Our Mistakes Supreme Court Argument Form Thoughts for a Year Denial and Consolation The Flip Book To the Bag Edward L. [read post]
2 Nov 2015, 11:43 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
For a discussion of laches as a defense in patent infringement cases, seethe NLR article “Raging Bull” and the Patent Act: Laches Still Available in Patent Cases - SCA Hygiene Products v. [read post]
30 Jul 2016, 10:39 am
       “Fear and Loathing”        U.S.; markets; neo-liberalism; globalization         Factionalism       Caution and Incrementalism? [read post]
25 May 2011, 7:36 am by chief
Oxford City Council v Bull [2011] EWCA Civ 609 In which the Court of Appeal had to consider whether the homeless applicant had made himself intentionally homeless and whether he was in priority need. [read post]