Search for: "Central Pacific R. Co. v. United States" Results 41 - 58 of 58
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Jan 2017, 12:18 pm by Barry Sookman
At a minimum the party to be bound must be shown to have been aware of the Terms and Conditions at the time of purchase: see Kobelt Manufacturing Co v Pacific Rim Engineered Products (1987) Ltd, 2011 BCSC 224 at para 124, 84 BLR (4th) 189. [read post]
22 Mar 2008, 2:00 am
: (IPBiz),US: Two remaining challenged WARF embryonic stem cell patents upheld in ex parte reexamination: (Holman's Biotech IP Blog), Pharma & Biotech - ProductsAricept (Donepezil) – USV wins appeal against USPTO decision: (Spicy IP),Celerex (Celecoxib) – CAFC decision in Celebrex patents dispute between Pfizer and Teva will cut patent term by one and a half years: (Patent Baristas), Inersan – Ranbaxy in-licenses Inersan to CD Pharma to market in India and… [read post]
30 Dec 2018, 3:03 am by Ben
Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit in Folkens v Wyland. [read post]
9 Dec 2019, 12:05 pm by Gordon Ahl, William Ford
Assistant Secretary of State David R. [read post]
29 Dec 2021, 12:00 pm by Kevin LaCroix
The US experience, as shown by securities class actions such as Owens Corning v National Union Fire Insurance Co [6], indicates that the construction of exclusions is not a simple issue. [read post]
31 Jan 2010, 7:16 pm by admin
“The United States brought this case to protect an important body of water, Pyramid Lake,” said Ignacia S. [read post]
31 Oct 2009, 4:06 pm by admin
In a strongly worded order issued last week, a district judge overturned a 2008 state ruling that granted the authority permission to tap groundwater from three valleys in central Lincoln County. [read post]
7 Apr 2010, 3:44 pm by admin
The two companies will also pay a combined $3.3 million civil penalty to the United States as well as to Alabama and Louisiana, and $200,000 to Louisiana organ [read post]