Search for: "In re I.S."
Results 1821 - 1840
of 13,264
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Mar 2023, 12:48 pm
Villalba was told by his lawyer (i.e., that he might not be deported) versus what he was told by the court (i.e., that he would be deported), Mr. [read post]
19 Apr 2018, 7:00 am
Small businesses generate negative externalities if they're exempted. [read post]
15 Mar 2013, 4:30 am
In re Cesar R., supra. [read post]
24 Jul 2008, 1:50 pm
(The feature involving mobile phones is currently only for the U.S. but they’re working on Canada, we’re told.) [read post]
3 Nov 2015, 11:05 am
Also, a judge is not able to continue judgment (i.e. grant a PJC) on some charges. [read post]
3 Aug 2007, 5:01 pm
We're back to a White House-penned bill now, S.1927. [read post]
3 Sep 2008, 10:00 am
Here's something that you really should read if you're interested in the business of intellectual property. [read post]
26 Sep 2011, 11:30 am
As a result, we vacate the injunction and damages award.There was a different claim construction between the USPTO in re-exam and a district court:In response, Marine Polymer argued to the PTO that “the [district court’s] interpretation of the term ‘biocompatible’ should be adopted in this reexamination” (i.e., that “biocompatible” should be construed to mean “no detectable biological reactivity”). [read post]
29 May 2012, 5:15 am
In re Vitro, S.A.B de C.V v. [read post]
24 Jan 2025, 12:19 pm
If you’re planning a move to England, here are some essential points to consider. [read post]
3 Aug 2009, 6:32 am
In re McNeil (08-1546). [read post]
13 Nov 2012, 3:36 am
Additionally, while proponents are not required to consider new noise receptors when re-issuing draft site plans for the purposes of the setback prohibitions (i.e. minimum 550 m noise setback), they must still comply with the ministry’s noise guidelines/limits. [read post]
14 Nov 2018, 1:09 pm
“An almost universal objective of re-examining partner compensation systems is to increase cross-firm collaboration. [read post]
9 Feb 2009, 4:29 pm
Consider the firm's assets to ensure that you're sufficiently protected. [read post]
9 Dec 2009, 5:31 am
One point made was that when someone else owns your name (i.e., @JohnSmith), what are you supposed to do? [read post]
3 Feb 2017, 12:36 pm
You’re probably getting excited about watching Super Bowl LI being played over in Houston. [read post]
24 Mar 2015, 6:37 pm
See In re DeLaet, Case #13-04032. [read post]
18 Dec 2008, 12:28 am
"I have decided, today, that I will no longer simply include the word "nonrefundable" in my retainer agreements with a detailed explanation of the word "nonrefundable and how it affects the retainer agreement, i.e. you're not getting your money back if you choose to hire another lawyer, have a dispute with this lawyer, or otherwise wish to cancel the agreement.What I am going to do from now on is provide the client with a separate document solely discussing… [read post]
28 Dec 2007, 4:56 am
In re Vanity Fair, Inc., Serial No. 78515219 (December 17, 2007) [not precedential].A proper Section 2(e)(3) requires proof of three elements: (1) the primary significance of the mark is a generally known geographic location; (2) the consuming public is likely to believe that the goods originate in that location (i.e., a goods-place association exists), when in fact the goods do not, and (3) the misrepresentation would be material to the consumer's decision to purchase the… [read post]
31 Jul 2017, 10:25 am
Res. 111 disapproving the arbitration rule under the CRA. [read post]
