Search for: "State of California v. United States" Results 1621 - 1640 of 13,838
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
The United States District Court for the Central District of California recently granted a plaintiff’s motion to strike portions of the defendant’s expert report for the untimely disclosure of new invalidity theories that were not previously disclosed in the defendant’s invalidity contentions. [read post]
4 Mar 2022, 9:18 am by Eric Goldman
’” The examining attorney at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) refused to register the proposed mark on the ground the phrase falsely suggests a connection with a person (here Donald Trump) in violation of Lanham Act Section 2(a), and also because this mark violates Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act. [read post]
3 Mar 2022, 10:10 am by Eugene Volokh
"While we believe strongly in the warm friendship and cultural exchange that has long existed between the artists and artistic institutions of Russia and the United States," Mr. [read post]
28 Feb 2022, 9:00 pm by Vikram David Amar
Notable state judicial review under state constitutions in fact predated the Philadelphia Convention and Marbury v. [read post]
27 Feb 2022, 4:30 pm by INFORRM
Norway Norway’s industry minister said the government would be unable to stop a transfer of state-owned telecoms operator Telenor’s metadata of 18 million Myanmar customers. [read post]
26 Feb 2022, 6:51 pm by Samuel Bray
Professor Nielson describes two arguments made by the Deputy Solicitor General, arguing on behalf of the United States. [read post]
24 Feb 2022, 7:10 am by sam
(“Apple”) appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) from an adverse decision in the District Court for the Central District of California in an infringement suit filed by the California Institute […] The post <i>CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY V. [read post]
24 Feb 2022, 6:02 am
The changes in the market for D&O insurance cannot be traced to a single source but are instead the result of a confluence of factors, including: The rise of litigation finance firms; The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Cyan, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Feb 2022, 1:29 pm by Ronald Mann
The Pueblo (and also the Alabama-Coushatta), by contrast, argue that the reference to “prohibited” activities is a short-hand reference to the Supreme Court’s 1987 decision in California v. [read post]