Search for: "GRANT et al v. HOLDER et al" Results 141 - 160 of 463
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Mar 2017, 4:29 pm by Dennis Crouch
Straus, 210 U.S. 339 (1908)). [4] Brief for Petitioner at 10, 13, 42, 45–46 (Jan. 17, 2017). [5] E.g., Brief of Public Knowledge et al. at 5, 9, 13–14 (Jan. 23, 2017); Brief of Costco Wholesale Corp. et al. at 20–21, 33–34 (Jan. 24, 2017); Brief for HTC Corp. et al. at 12, 17 (Jan. 24, 2017); Brief of the Association of Medical Device Reprocessors at 36 (Jan. 24, 2017); Brief of Auto Car Association et… [read post]
26 Mar 2017, 11:55 am by Ben
This leaves copyright holders in the position of eternally having to search YouTube, Facebook et al. for instances of infringement – an eternal game of ‘whack-a-mole’. [read post]
24 Mar 2017, 7:24 am by John Elwood
Indiana Public Retirement System, et al., 16-581? [read post]
12 Feb 2017, 4:12 am by Jelle Hoekstra
The decision made reference inter alia to the following document:D1: Woo-Jin Han et al. [read post]
11 Feb 2017, 4:59 am by SHG
Trump, Josh, et al., “alerted” the court as to this fundamental change in law. [read post]
19 Jan 2017, 8:08 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Jesse Witten, Drinker Biddle (representing Amanda Blackhorse, et al. on amicus brief)No question that our case hangs over Tam, especially locally. [read post]
10 Jan 2017, 2:40 pm by Steven Boutwell
Jewell, et al., Civil Action No. 16-145, currently pending in the Lafayette Division of the Western District of Louisiana. [read post]
26 Dec 2016, 4:30 am by Ben
Well Marie-Andree cited that 1879 case  Feist Publications, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Dec 2016, 9:00 am by Robert Kreisman
On Dec. 7, 2011, a bench trial was held without a court reporter in which the caption of the case listed Akeem Manago “et al. [read post]
7 Dec 2016, 9:00 am by Robert Kreisman
On Dec. 7, 2011, a bench trial was held without a court reporter in which the caption of the case listed Akeem Manago “et al. [read post]
22 Oct 2016, 3:26 am
The correct analysis was that the infringer must have intended to distribute much more widely than to one downloader, and thus his acts amounted to an attempt to distribute to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the copyright owner.Laddie et al (5th), [20.26], p 823, referring to the phrase in section 23(d) of the CDPA, calls it “a sweeping up provision which would appear to cover most forms of handling of infringing copies not covered elsewhere. [read post]
12 Jun 2016, 2:43 pm by Florian Mueller
The Internet Association, SIIA et al. brief contains an interesting explanation of how "article of manufacture" must be interpreted differently from a "machine. [read post]