Search for: "Arnold v. Smith " Results 81 - 100 of 220
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Jul 2011, 1:44 pm
Sighted this morning, breaking the surface just off the Strand, the judgment of Mr Justice Arnold in MedImmune v Novartis [2011] EWHC 1669 (Pat) certainly fits the legend.In characteristic style, the judgment is as comprehensive as one would wish. [read post]
19 Sep 2016, 11:55 am by Dan Ernst
The Article III question is now the subject of a potentially landmark case, al Bahlul v. [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 9:36 am
 In the brand-new Court of Appeal decision just out - Actavis UK Ltd & Others v Eli Lilly & Company [2015] EWCA Civ 555 (25 June 2015), Lord Justice Floyd (Lords Justices Kitchin and Longmore concurring) disagreed with Arnold J on two main issues. [read post]
24 Aug 2017, 5:46 am by Dan Ernst
  General Washington relied upon this resolution in 1780 as authority to convene a court-martial to try Joshua Hett Smith for assisting Benedict Arnold in the plot to surrender West Point to the British. [read post]
22 Feb 2014, 4:08 pm by INFORRM
The decision of the European Court of Justice in Svensson v Retriever Sverige AB (Case C‑466/12, 13 February 2014) has established some important points about the legality of linking under EU copyright law: A clickable direct link to a copyright work made freely available on the internet with the authority of the copyright holder does not infringe. [read post]
21 Feb 2013, 3:45 pm
  In setting out the law as to the common general knowledge, the judge referred to his decision in KCI Licensing Inc v Smith & Nephew plc [2010] EWHC 1487 (Pat) as approved by the Court of Appeal [2010] EWCA Civ 1260. [read post]
22 May 2017, 4:09 pm by INFORRM
The effect of Article 15 can be seen in the ECJ decisions of SABAM v Scarlet and SABAM v Netlog prohibiting content filtering injunctions, and in Arnold J’s Cartier judgment itself: “If ISPs could be required to block websites without having actual knowledge of infringing activity, that would be tantamount to a general obligation to monitor. [read post]
13 Jul 2015, 3:51 am
 Nikos tells all.* Convatec v Smith & Nephew: why the Court of Appeal was wrongThe IPKat has reported already twice on the interesting Court of Appeal, England and Wales, decision in Smith & Nephew Plc v ConvaTec Technologies Inc, relating to ConvaTec's patent EP (UK) 1,343,510 on silverised wound dressings (see Jeremy here and Darren here). [read post]
25 Feb 2015, 2:23 am
 Tobias is also letting us have a copy of an English translation of Kecofa v Lancôme. [read post]
16 May 2012, 12:22 pm by Bexis
First, Bexis wishes to welcome the Blog's readership from his new office at Reed Smith.  [read post]
19 May 2009, 5:25 am
Other participating firms in addition to Dechert (Joe Hetrick's the conference co-chair): Reed Smith, Arnold & Porter, King & Spalding, and Pepper Hamilton for our side and Cohen, Placitella, Raynes McCarty, and Seeger Weiss representing the other side of the "v".For a complete list of the pairings and the topics see the conference brochure. [read post]
30 Jul 2010, 3:22 am
In a super judgment in January, noted by the IPKat here, Mr Justice Arnold (Chancery Division, England and Wales) held in Diageo v Intercontinental Brands that the sale of a product under the name VODKAT was a form of "extended passing off" which makers of genuine vodka were entitled to prevent. [read post]
25 Oct 2011, 6:50 am
It was in the course of this nostalgic meander through the warm and sunny days of July that he stumbled on a case which is actually quite interesting, and even important if you like beer and roses: Samuel Smith Old Brewery v Philip Lee (trading as Cropton Brewery) [2011] EWHC 1879 (Ch), a ruling by Mr Justice Arnold, Chancery Division, England and Wales, 22 July 2011. [read post]