Search for: "D & L Construction Co. & Associates v. the United States"
Results 81 - 100
of 237
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Jul 2018, 5:53 pm
L. [read post]
1 Jul 2014, 7:30 am
FRENCH: Cliquez ici pour le télécharger. .GRAND CHAMBERCASE OF S.A.S. v. [read post]
23 Oct 2009, 10:00 am
" # # # Decided on October 22, 2009 No. 131 [*1]Amy L. [read post]
15 Jun 2011, 9:22 am
United States and its progeny? [read post]
17 Dec 2009, 4:51 am
Co. v. [read post]
16 Dec 2010, 4:40 am
United States v. [read post]
20 May 2019, 9:11 am
Merely stating the seemingly obvious--that the unit of analysis is “the case”--does not solve all problems. [read post]
18 Dec 2017, 3:24 am
Kohler Co. v. [read post]
7 Mar 2008, 9:46 am
" Janeen L. [read post]
3 Apr 2014, 12:30 pm
In 2009, the county sheriff’s association approached the Association about hosting a three day rodeo as a fundraiser. [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 11:05 pm
United States (Gray on Claims) CAFC: Orion v Hyundai on novelty: Expanding the scope of a printed publication with oral testimony (Patently-O) District Court N D Illinois: False marking includes marking with expired patent number: ZOJO Solutions Inc. v. [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 8:13 am
As with all matters of judicial interpretation, there are matters of nuance and construction. [read post]
13 Jul 2009, 6:45 am
(Afro-IP) Spain Trade mark cancellation and damages: a matter of (bad) faith (Class 46) United Kingdom EWHC (Pat): No ruling on hypothetical issue: MMI Research Ltd v Cellxion Ltd (IPKat) EWHC (Pat): EP 258 valid in Netherlands but not UK: Novartis AG and Cibavision AG v Johnson & Johnson Medical Ltd & Ors (PatLit) EWHC: Trial judge says ‘Boileau’ to patent licence; appeal court agrees: Oxonica Energy Ltd v… [read post]
2 Feb 2024, 1:39 pm
Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. [read post]
23 Sep 2018, 9:50 am
Hubbard, for Cash Zone, LLC d/b/a Cash Biz, Respondent.Patrick E. [read post]
20 Dec 2010, 1:49 pm
BMC Resources, 498 F.3d at 1378-79 (citing WarnerJenkinson Co., Inc. v. [read post]
3 Dec 2022, 7:08 am
Furthermore, on a proper construction of sections 9 and 10 of the Crimes Ordinance, the prosecution is required to prove that the defendant cannot benefit from the “defence” stated in section 9(2) of the Crimes Ordinance, and that the defendant had a seditious intention when he did the act complained of. [read post]
12 Sep 2010, 10:45 pm
Adams & Associates, L.L.C. v. [read post]
9 Apr 2009, 9:27 am
(Promote the Progress) N D Illinois one step closer to adopting patent rules (Peter Zura's 271 Patent Blog) Innovate Texas Foundation launched to accelerate state’s IP commercialisation (Technology Transfer Tactics) Special Masters a [read post]
2 Oct 2016, 12:11 pm
See United States v. [read post]
