Search for: "United States v. Choice" Results 1841 - 1860 of 6,612
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Apr 2018, 4:56 pm by Daniel Nazer
If you want damages for sales in the United States, you need a U.S. patent. [read post]
1 Dec 2021, 10:04 am by Amy Howe
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who argued on behalf of the United States as a “friend of the court” supporting Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the only abortion clinic in Mississippi. [read post]
13 Feb 2015, 12:32 am by rhapsodyinbooks
” Both the Virginia ruling and other similar recent decisions relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. [read post]
2 Aug 2022, 4:24 am by Samuel Bray
" APA remedies is a huge and recurring question, and it has new urgency after the Supreme Court's cert grant in United States v. [read post]
3 Apr 2007, 12:32 pm
" A crack-powder disparity argument is rejected under United States v. [read post]
20 Dec 2013, 3:13 pm by Lyle Denniston
While the Supreme Court in the case of United States v. [read post]
22 Jan 2014, 6:42 am
Focarino that the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") was entitled to recover attorneys' fees when brought to court for a review of Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("TTAB") rulings. [read post]
8 Jun 2010, 2:35 pm by Bartolus
301/06 Ireland v Parliament and Council [2009] ECR I-593, paragraph 64; United Kingdom v Parliament and Council, paragraphs 60 to 64). [read post]
5 Nov 2014, 7:13 am by Epstein Becker Green
The Solicitor General, in an amicus brief, argued on behalf of the United States that trustees of ERISA plans owed a continuing duty of prudence, which they breach by failing to research fund options and offer available lower-cost institutional-class investments during the six-year period prior to the filing of the complaint. [read post]
5 Nov 2014, 7:13 am by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.
The Solicitor General, in an amicus brief, argued on behalf of the United States that trustees of ERISA plans owed a continuing duty of prudence, which they breach by failing to research fund options and offer available lower-cost institutional-class investments during the six-year period prior to the filing of the complaint. [read post]
22 Dec 2019, 9:30 pm by Mitra Sharafi
The United States Supreme Court has endorsed this approach. [read post]