Search for: "United States v. Lilly"
Results 161 - 180
of 384
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Jul 2015, 3:51 am
Amazon's trade mark travails in the USThe doctrine of initial interest confusion [Mr Justice Arnold was in favour here and here; "no, no, no" said the Court of Appeal for England and Wales] is a fascinating doctrine that is of great potential value to trade mark-owning litigants in the United States, where it is still alive and kicking. [read post]
16 Mar 2020, 9:12 am
See United States v. [read post]
18 Apr 2011, 4:00 am
Some of the documents Chevron sought were not located in the United States. [read post]
1 Jun 2017, 9:45 am
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Johnson, Timothy Russell, Oral Arguments and Decision Making on the United States Supreme Court (2004). [read post]
28 Mar 2010, 5:07 pm
On this basis the Court concluded that the Schauzu publication discloses olanzapine as one of its compounds.In its assessment, the Court took into account the EPO case law on flaws and mistakes in disclosures (T 89/87, T 412/91, T77/87, T 591/90).The Court also admitted that its decision deviated from earlier decisions in the United States, China, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Ukraine, Russia, Germany, United Kingdom, Austria and Spain, giving a brief explanation… [read post]
13 Sep 2010, 1:44 am
United States U.S. [read post]
5 Nov 2017, 3:10 pm
Much reliance was placed by Actavis' counsel on the Court of Appeal in Actavis v Merck [2008] EWCA Civ 444 which stated that:“32. [read post]
30 Apr 2009, 1:23 am
COURT OF APPEALS, SECOND CIRCUITCriminal PracticeDefendant Lacks Sixth Amendment Right to Jury Instruction on Mandatory Minimum Sentence United States, appellee-cross-appellant v. [read post]
17 Oct 2017, 6:09 pm
The panel members were Mattias Zigann, the presiding judge of the Munich Regional Court, Philip Kerr of Allens Linklaters and Larry Welch, the Senior Director, and Assistant General Patent Counsel at Eli Lilly and Company.Mr Ludwig explained that the question of what relief was appropriate had been highlighted by the very recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in AMGEN INC & ors v. [read post]
3 Mar 2016, 5:19 am
See Larkin v. [read post]
18 Feb 2011, 4:11 pm
Katz Technology Licensing LP (“Katz”) appeals from final judgments entered by the United States District Court for the Central District of California in a group of consolidated cases. [read post]
2 Aug 2015, 5:30 am
Is King v. [read post]
7 Jun 2009, 2:15 pm
The "statement of counsel" signed by John Whealan states:Based on my professional judgment, I believe the panel decision is contrary to the following decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States: The Telephone Cases 126 U.S. [read post]
22 Aug 2007, 10:49 am
California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965) and United States v. [read post]
6 Jan 2009, 9:14 am
" (8) United States v. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 12:46 pm
State, 686 S.E.2d 483, 485-86 (Ga. [read post]
25 Aug 2013, 9:35 am
The article goes on to talk about the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which was a congressional response to Ledbetter v. [read post]
27 Nov 2006, 4:46 am
Lilly M. [read post]
25 Apr 2016, 5:00 am
| Actavis v Lilly | EU public consultation on neighbouring rights | Life as an IP Lawyer in San Francisco | Copyright in chess games | Trade surplus and IP | Fujifilm Kyowa Biologics v AbbVie Biotechnology. [read post]
12 Jan 2010, 7:26 am
See, for example, Eli Lilly and Co. v. [read post]
