Search for: "Bird v. United States"
Results 241 - 260
of 566
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Feb 2016, 8:33 pm
On February 11, 2016, in Kuehl v. [read post]
4 Feb 2016, 6:52 am
Title 21 of the United States Code is divided into 27 chapters addressing various things about food and drugs. [read post]
3 Feb 2016, 7:31 am
Michael Landon (“Little Joe Cartwright”) being served with a subpoena (1968) Another useful Townsend post addresses a common issue — the Government’s attempt to muzzle the recipients of subpoenas: In United States v. [read post]
25 Jan 2016, 4:13 pm
United States (Fed.Cir. 2000) 220 F.3d at 1368). [read post]
14 Jan 2016, 11:43 am
United States ex rel. [read post]
13 Jan 2016, 5:05 pm
John Reed Stark David Fontaine In this day and age, the members of the boards of directors of most companies understand that cybersecurity issues are both important and should be a board-level priority. [read post]
20 Dec 2015, 4:47 am
The following is a short review of the amicus briefs that have been filed in the case.[3] United States Government When the United States government files and amicus brief, that brief is usually seen as the most important amicus brief in the case. [read post]
10 Dec 2015, 10:45 am
United States Army Corps of Engineers v. [read post]
10 Dec 2015, 2:00 am
Fifth Circuit United States v. [read post]
26 Oct 2015, 7:25 am
The case is Dunn et al. v. [read post]
16 Oct 2015, 7:08 am
United States, 14-10443, and Lopez v. [read post]
7 Oct 2015, 4:46 pm
United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981). [read post]
15 Sep 2015, 9:04 am
United States v. [read post]
15 Sep 2015, 9:04 am
United States v. [read post]
11 Sep 2015, 9:06 am
<> United States v. [read post]
10 Sep 2015, 10:42 am
” United States v. [read post]
9 Sep 2015, 7:54 am
Yesterday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit released it opinion in the matter styled United States v. [read post]
29 Jul 2015, 2:05 am
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling in the case of United States v. [read post]
28 Jul 2015, 3:46 am
AIPPI UK is delighted to welcome at very short notice two speakers, Christian Harmsen (Bird & Bird, Germany) and Jemima Stratford QC (Brick Court Chambers), who will provide a fascinating insight into the recent decision of the CJEU in Huawei v ZTE which considered the circumstances in which injunctive relief could be awarded in patent disputes involving standards essential patents (SEPs). [read post]
3 Jul 2015, 4:28 am
The original shot in this battle, arguing that the new patent package was setting a dangerous precedent since the EU Member States were stripping the Union of its powers, can be read here. [read post]
