Search for: "Bull v. United States" Results 1 - 20 of 530
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Dec 2019, 9:50 pm by Patent Docs
By Daniel Boehnen -- Last month, the United States government, acting on behalf of its Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), filed suit in Delaware against Gilead Sciences, Inc. and Gilead Sciences Ireland UC for infringing four patents covering inventions developed by scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [read post]
23 Apr 2010, 9:05 am by Lyrissa Lidsky
As readers of this blog probably know by now, United States v. [read post]
28 Dec 2018, 4:04 pm
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 17-421 Filed: December 27, 2018 ALICE KIMBLE, Plaintiff, v. [read post]
14 Oct 2010, 8:41 pm by Heidi Meinzer
For a wonderful analysis of what the Court did and did not do in Stevens, be sure to catch Matthew Liebman’s post on the Animal Legal Defense Fund Blog, Clarifying the Supreme Court’s United States v. [read post]
26 May 2015, 7:34 am by Dean Freeman
Defendants rented the downstairs unit to another couple, who also owned several dogs that were of pit bull ancestry. [read post]
2 Jan 2012, 6:41 pm
In a case that got a lot of media coverage while I was away, Judge Mark Bennett of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa issued a preliminary injunction in Sak v. [read post]
14 Dec 2009, 2:05 am
BULL 8-1-1798 Question: This is the source of all ex post facto cases: The court holding a law is a ex post facto violation if any of the following have occurred: 1st. [read post]
29 Oct 2014, 12:02 pm
In its complaint, filed by patent attorneys for Draper, the following claims are asserted: Count I: Vutec Motorized Projection Screen Model - LECTRIC I-C - Patent Infringement of United States Patent No. 6,532,109 Count II: Vutec Motorized Projection Screen Model - LECTRIC III-C - Patent Infringement of United States Patent No. 6,532,109 Count III: Vutec Motorized Projection Screen Model - LECTRIC II-e Patent… [read post]
28 Mar 2016, 11:36 am
In this federal lawsuit, filed by an Indiana trademark attorney, the following claims are made: Count I: Federal Trademark Infringement Count II: False Designation of Origin, False Advertising and Unfair Competition under the Lanham Act Section 43(A) Count III: Unfair Competition - Trade Name Infringement Count IV: Unfair Competition - Passing Off Count V: Unjust Enrichment GAB seeks equitable relief, damages,… [read post]
7 May 2019, 8:54 am by ricelawmd_3p2zve
An exception was made for pit bulls when the Maryland Court of Appeals considered a pit bull attack in the 2012 case of Tracey v. [read post]