Search for: "Peter v. Peter" Results 1581 - 1600 of 8,639
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
The Court of Appeals concluded that the court erred by “refusing to apply” binding authority found in State v. [read post]
11 Mar 2021, 2:33 pm by Lundgren & Johnson, PSC
More recently, the Supreme Court decided the case of Presley v. [read post]
10 Mar 2021, 8:51 am by Peter Margulies, Ira Rubinstein
The July 2020 decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Data Protection Commissioner v. [read post]
8 Mar 2021, 4:00 am by Administrator
… Doorey’s Workplace Law BlogKovintharajah v. [read post]
8 Mar 2021, 3:35 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Peter Sherwood is the unusual government case in which a legal malpractice issue is inserted. [read post]
8 Mar 2021, 3:30 am by Eric B. Meyer
Gustafson a curious pick for GC was all the time she spent on the other side of the “v” (Plaintiff v. [read post]
7 Mar 2021, 5:49 am by Magdaleen Jooste
The High Court decision in Illumina v MGI hit the IP headlines for its application of the Supreme Court decision in Regeneron v Kymab. [read post]
Another topic to evaluate is how patent protection strategies are pursued in parallel to clinical and commercial activities related to COVID-19 vaccines, diagnostics, and therapeutics (for example, the authors of a recent Lancet paper about the Sputnik V vaccine are named as inventors in a series of Russian patent documents published between May and September 2020 and in a PCT application published in January 2021). [read post]
2 Mar 2021, 9:40 am by Josh H. Escovedo and Zack Thompson
Supreme Court issued numerous landmark decisions in 2020, among those—for trademark scholars and practitioners—Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. [read post]
2 Mar 2021, 4:00 am by Deanne Sowter
The words “family violence”, “domestic violence”, “intimate partner violence” and “coercive control” do not appear anywhere in the Federation of Law Societies of Canada Model Code of Professional Conduct. [read post]
1 Mar 2021, 5:34 am by Ben Millson (Bristows)
Turning to de minimis, Arnold LJ noted that it was common ground that his own statement of the law in Napp v Dr Reddy’s [2016] EWHC 1517 (Pat) was accurate, and analysed whether three “groups” of infringement were de minimis. [read post]
27 Feb 2021, 12:37 am by Matthieu Dhenne (Ipsilon)
The Court then reaffirms that the criteria identified by the Court of Justice in Huawei v. [read post]