Search for: "Arnold v. Usa*"
Results 61 - 80
of 127
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Jun 2015, 6:08 am
Nuxoll v. [read post]
1 Jun 2015, 3:33 pm
* Warner-Lambert v Actavis; the Court of Appeal has its say on second medical use claims in the UKIPKat readers who have followed this saga will know that, earlier this year, Mr Justice Arnold gave the first detailed consideration of what a Swiss-form claim means [see blog posts here and here]. [read post]
13 May 2015, 4:37 am
The Court of Appeal (through Sir John Mummery) essentially agreed with Arnold J. and dismissed the appeal. [read post]
10 May 2015, 4:09 pm
” Balandran, 972 S.W.2d at 741 n.1 (citing STEVEN PLITT, ET AL., 2 COUCH ON INSURANCE § 22.14 (3d ed. 1997); Arnold v. [read post]
8 May 2015, 8:15 am
MICHAEL ARNOLD, JANET ARNOLD, STEVE SOUTH AS TRUSTEE AND ON BEHALF OF THE SOUTH LIVING TRUST, JOHN S. [read post]
20 Mar 2015, 7:57 pm
Arnold Schecter and Dr. [read post]
24 Feb 2015, 3:18 am
The case is Supreme Petfoods Ltd v Henry Bell & Co (Grantham) Ltd [2015] EWHC 256 (Ch), yet another blockbuster judgment from Mr Justice Arnold in the High Court, Chancery Division, for England and Wales. [read post]
26 Jan 2015, 4:03 am
Circuit Court of Appeals in Pom Wonderful LLC v Hubbard et al | Biotech inventions: controversies, case law, uncertainties and financing.Never too late 26 [week ending Sunday 28 December] -- Arnold J on Ice cream van design in Whitby Specialist Vehicles v Yorkshire Specialist Vehicles | Adios to positive right of TM in Spain | Costs of Vestergaard Fransen v Bestnet Europe | Irish PTO on slogan TMs | Merpel summarises… [read post]
29 Dec 2014, 2:16 am
In this, the 26th round-up, Alberto records the following:* A design infringement case for the holidaysDarren reports on Whitby Specialist Vehicles Ltd v Yorkshire Specialist Vehicles Ltd & Others [2014] EWHC 4242 (Pat), an Arnold J but not-so-Arnoldian decision concerning the design of an ice cream van with a bit of trade mark infringement on top. [read post]
27 Dec 2014, 2:19 am
More from Europe: In Case C-355/12 Nintendo v PC Box the CJEU said that circumventing a protection system may not be unlawful. [read post]
18 Dec 2014, 6:00 am
For example, while most disfluencies consistently increase with the speaker’s anxiety, uhs and ums generally do not.7 Longer sentences contain more disfluencies overall, but uh and um remain relatively constant.8 And, while men use uh and um more often than women, both genders demonstrate similar levels of other disfluencies. 9 These differences in usage have led linguists to study the verbal fillers uh and um as unique phenomena. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
Ellis v. [read post]
7 Aug 2014, 3:00 am
Rob Weiner On July 22, in Halbig v. [read post]
15 Jul 2014, 4:15 am
If the footage was commissioned by Arnold Pistorius for instance, as some reports seem to suggest, then it is unlikely to be protected by legal privilege. [read post]
27 May 2014, 12:15 am
It's Shanks v Unilever Plc & Others [2014] EWHC 1647 (Pat), a Patents Court for England and Wales ruling of the indefatigable Mr Justice Arnold. [read post]
13 May 2014, 9:23 am
"All this is compliant with the GAT and Folien decisions and the Corte di Cassazione ruling, as well the UK decision in Joined cases Actavis Group hf v Eli Lilly & Company (USA) and Medis ehf v Eli Lilly & Company (USA) [here]. [read post]
6 Nov 2013, 10:42 am
This Kat was travelling last week when Mr Justice Arnold handed down the decision in HTC Corporation v Nokia ([2013] EWHC 3247 (Pat)), and has only now had a chance to read it. [read post]
2 Aug 2013, 1:35 pm
., v. [read post]
7 Apr 2013, 11:53 pm
By Gretchen Goetz and Helena Bottemiller By March of last year, lean finely textured beef (LFTB) had reached celebrity status under the unfavorable moniker “pink slime. [read post]
15 Mar 2013, 9:00 am
In one of a series of rulings in U.S. v. [read post]
