Search for: "US v. Zhang"
Results 141 - 160
of 261
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Feb 2020, 3:32 am
Judicial ruling strengthening protection of integrity of works The case in question: Muye Zhang v China Film Co. [read post]
21 Feb 2022, 12:24 am
On 16 February 2022, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in ZXC v Bloomberg [2022] UKSC 5. [read post]
27 Sep 2018, 2:44 pm
Co. v. [read post]
27 Sep 2018, 2:44 pm
Co. v. [read post]
27 Nov 2023, 6:21 am
So this was different from the troop of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, looting during the 16th century. [read post]
12 Jan 2012, 9:20 am
Zhang v. [read post]
13 Apr 2019, 9:17 am
And Jessica Zhang analyzed the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Hamama v. [read post]
3 Jul 2023, 4:07 am
” Surveillance UK private businesses are using facial recognition technology more than other countries, the New York Times reports. [read post]
15 Mar 2022, 7:17 am
The leading case is Bridgeway Corp. v. [read post]
22 Mar 2022, 4:38 am
It is therefore hardly surprising, especially in light of the often Delphic language used by the CJEU in its rulings, that parties will fight hard to argue each and every point of possible ambiguity. [read post]
28 Jun 2022, 10:50 am
Swan€ 112 Chinese Patent Law: A Practical Guide by Sun Changlong, Zhang Junjie, Fanwen Kong, Dang Li, Yongbo Li, Zhang Liang (William), Wang Meng, Zhang Qiulin, Wang Rong, Gu Runfeng, Chen Shasha, Lu Weiting, Ge Xiaomei, Yang Yang, He Yibo€ 148 [read post]
10 Oct 2017, 5:52 am
” Jian Zhang v. [read post]
30 Jun 2021, 7:35 am
On June 11, 2021, in Yu v. [read post]
4 Aug 2022, 6:56 am
Genentech v. [read post]
28 Jun 2019, 6:00 am
State of Georgia v. [read post]
11 Oct 2008, 8:13 pm
Wingerter v. [read post]
18 Jun 2012, 3:50 am
Please contact us with additional items for this section and we will update the round up. [read post]
9 Mar 2023, 9:05 pm
Fang, V. [read post]
21 Mar 2017, 1:30 pm
Circuit’s ruling in Doe v. [read post]
23 Oct 2023, 6:16 pm
In Regie Nationale des Usines Renault SA v Zhang (Renault v Zhang), the High Court (at [78]) described the test as requiring the applicant to show the Australian proceeding: would be productive of injustice, because it would be oppressive in the sense of seriously and unfairly burdensome, prejudicial or damaging, or vexatious … In Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (Voth), a majority observed (at 566): the extent to which the law of the forum is… [read post]
