Search for: "STAND et al. v. STATE." Results 1921 - 1940 of 2,184
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Oct 2019, 4:38 pm by Unknown
On this contention, the book must stand or fall. [read post]
28 Apr 2008, 11:00 am
: (Patent Docs), US: Supreme Court declines to hear final Nucleonics’ appeal in gene-silencing patent dispute with Benitec Australia: (IP Law360), (Therapeutics Daily), US: 505(b)(2) drug approvals rock - Interaction of patents and exclusivity of drugs approved by FDA under section 505(b)(2): (Patent Baristas), US: StemCells’ patents survive reexam – StemCells and Neuralstem differ on extent of changes: (Patent Docs), US: StemCells announces issuance of… [read post]
8 May 2014, 4:00 am by Administrator
__________________________ [1] Redish et al., supra note 2 at 644-646. [2] See e.g., Bisaillon v. [read post]
22 Dec 2008, 12:07 pm
Sixth Circuit Holds Disabled Retirees Lack Standing to Bring Claims Under Disabilities ActLeroy McKnight, et al. v. [read post]
12 May 2010, 6:32 am by Sheppard Mullin
Cl. 489 (1997) and Pyxis Corp., B-282469 et al., July 15, 1999, 99-2 CPD ¶ 18 – the Court and the GAO respectively ruled that included non-Schedule items in a Schedule purchase was a no-no (a time-honored legal phrase). [read post]
8 Aug 2011, 2:00 am by Kara OBrien
 In this memo, Practice Center Contributor Stan Keller discusses what might happen now: With the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit having struck down Rule 14a-11 in Business Roundtable et al v. [read post]
16 Mar 2011, 1:21 pm by WIMS
House Passes Another Short-Term Budget CR USDA Study Indicates Success Of Agriculture Conservation Practices Great Waters Coalition Urges Senate To Reject Budget Cuts National Pork Producers, et al v. [read post]
1 Jun 2009, 7:05 am
It may be hiding in plain sight in US patent database (IP Asset Maximizer Blog) Interview with Mike Drummond of Inventors Digest (IP Watchdog)   US Patents – Decisions CAFC: Impact of merger/buyout on prior agreement to not challenge patent validity: Epistar v ITC (Patently-O) (ITC 337 Law Blog) CAFC affirms in part, reverses in part, vacates in part and remands Linear Technology Corporation v ITC (ITC 337 Law Blog) CAFC: Genetech & Volkswagon… [read post]
26 Oct 2010, 1:44 pm by Lyle Denniston
., the Court will hold a one-hour oral argument in the case of Schwarzenegger, et al., v. [read post]
4 Jan 2019, 3:20 pm by Robert Kreisman
Capital Fitness, Inc. d/b/a XSport Fitness, et al., No. 2-17-1035 (Appellate Court of Illinois, Second Judicial District). [read post]