Search for: "Bare v. Bare" Results 161 - 180 of 4,971
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Jan 2018, 4:11 pm by INFORRM
Forum non conveniens The Claimant relied on EU case law (Owusu v Jackson (C-281/2002) and Maletic v lastminute.com GmbH (C-478-12)) to argue that the court was precluded from considering forum non conveniens issues. [read post]
17 Jul 2007, 3:02 am
Maybe it's just the law of unintended consequences, or perhaps more fairly for the Court, the law of unanticipated consequences, but when the Supreme Court held in Arbaugh v. [read post]
12 May 2020, 1:15 pm by Gene Quinn
It has become difficult to understand why the Federal Circuit does what it does in any number of rulings, but its decisions relating to patent eligibility have set patent law back several generations, turned precedent on its head, ignored the Patent Act passed by Congress, and unnecessarily and inexplicably expanded upon bad Supreme Court precedent. [read post]
18 Apr 2016, 5:44 am by Derek Black
Last week, the California Court of Appeals reversed the trial court that sent shockwaves through the nation when it ruled that California's tenure and seniority statutes were unconstitutional in 2014 in Vergara v. [read post]
3 Jun 2009, 10:17 am
He did not have a lot to go on, given that the last time the Supreme Court directly addressed the issue of patentable subject matter was in a 1981 case, Diamond v. [read post]
17 Dec 2014, 4:10 am by Howard Friedman
The complaint (full text) in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. [read post]