Search for: "Barth v. Barth" Results 41 - 60 of 80
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Jun 2013, 8:07 am by Joy Waltemath
Alleged violations of a university’s internal administrative policies were not violations of law as required by the Texas Whistleblower Act, nor were a university professor’s reports of them made to an appropriate law enforcement authority, ruled the Texas Supreme Court, finding the lower court lacked subject matter jurisdiction (University of Houston v Barth, June 14, 2013, per curiam). [read post]
14 Jun 2013, 12:28 pm by Don Cruse
STEPHEN BARTH, No. 12-0358 Per Curiam In this per curiam opinion, the Court revisits the case THE UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON v. [read post]
8 Apr 2013, 6:47 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Last week’s arguments in US v. [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 3:46 pm by National Indian Law Library
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (tobacco, taxation)In re Barth (bankruptcy, per capita payments)Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians v. [read post]
23 Aug 2012, 9:48 pm by Alex Gasser
As to the Barth patents, the Commission affirmed ALJ Essex’s determination that certain Barth patent claims were anticipated by Japanese Pat. [read post]
29 Jul 2012, 11:55 am by Gene Quinn
The Barth patents being unenforceable due to the destruction of documents relates to the Rambus' choice to destroy documents rather than have them discoverable during litigation proceedings. [read post]
9 Sep 2011, 2:01 am by Marie Louise
(Docket Report)   US Patents – Decisions ITC: ALJ Charneski issues public version of ID in Certain Personal Data and Mobile Communications Devices (337-TA-710) finding HTC infringed two of the four patents-at-issue (ITC 337 Law Blog) PTO Board sides with NVIDIA on two Rambus “Barth I” patents (WHDA)   US Patents – Lawsuits and strategic steps Apple – Apple to ITC re complaint against HTC: Andy Rubin got inspiration for Android framework while working… [read post]
4 Feb 2011, 4:51 pm by Lawrence Solum
This essay analyses the imposition of liability for the publication of intrusive photographs, as it is developing in the United Kingdom, using Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] 2 AC 459 and Douglas v Hello! [read post]