Search for: "LIN V US" Results 161 - 180 of 343
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Oct 2016, 4:07 pm by INFORRM
Mahmood’s custody picture was released and widely used in the media. [read post]
7 Oct 2016, 2:40 pm
Lin, Professor of Law, University of California, Davis, School of Law—Community Levers for Benefit Sharing James N. [read post]
2 Sep 2016, 3:39 am
The IPKat posted a report earlier this week of the case Hospira v Cubist, in which three patents belonging to Cubist were revoked by Mr Justice Carr. [read post]
30 Aug 2016, 7:52 am
This judgment [Hospira UK Ltd v Cubist Pharmaceuticals LLC [2016] EWHC 1285 (Pat) (10 June 2016)] was handed down a little while ago, but this Kat only recently got round to studying it properly, containing as it does decisions relating to three rather different patents. [read post]
25 Jun 2016, 7:03 am by Rishabh Bhandari
Isaac Park analyzed the Supreme Court’s ruling in RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. [read post]
21 May 2016, 7:19 am by Alex R. McQuade
Adam Klein provided a few thoughts on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Spokeo v. [read post]
6 May 2016, 12:58 pm by Alex R. McQuade
Edward Lin did not provide any military to secrets to any foreign governments. [read post]
3 May 2016, 2:41 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
Every fair use case has to be judged on its facts. [read post]
30 Apr 2016, 7:34 am by Alex R. McQuade
Yishai Schwartz outlined the implications for separation of powers in the Bank Markazi v. [read post]
30 Apr 2016, 7:34 am by Alex R. McQuade
Yishai Schwartz outlined the implications for separation of powers in the Bank Markazi v. [read post]
5 Mar 2016, 7:53 am by Alex R. McQuade
Robert Chesney provided us with another Apple v. [read post]
24 Feb 2016, 2:20 pm by Elina Saxena
The New York Times tells us that the Department of Justice “is demanding Apple’s help in unlocking at least nine iPhones nationwide in addition to the phone used by one of the San Bernardino” suspects, which, the Times suggests, appears to “buttress the company’s concerns that the dispute could pose a threat to encryption safeguards that goes well beyond the single California case. [read post]