Search for: "FSR, Inc."
Results 1 - 20
of 43
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 May 2023, 3:00 am
The functionality or ideas that lie behind the code is protected (SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1482 at §20-§37). [read post]
8 Mar 2023, 12:17 am
They suggested that a court should consider whether: (i) the individual’s conduct would make them liable as an accessory irrespective of their status as a director; and then (ii) whether the fact that the individual is a director gives them a defence (see further MCA Records Inc v Charly [2001] EWCA Civ 1441, [2002] FSR 26 for details of possible such defences). [read post]
22 Jul 2022, 5:35 am
The letter stated in point: The Florida Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) has recently learned that Demotech, Inc. [read post]
7 Jan 2020, 1:58 am
Thus there is no de minimis rule: Ansul [2003] R.P.C. 40 at [39]; La Mer [2004] FSR 38 at [21], [24] and [25]; Sunrider [2006] ECR I-4237 at [72]; Leno Merken [2013] ETMR 16 at [55].Second hand use of the stereoImage: Bart Everson8. [read post]
11 Nov 2019, 5:00 am
If you are interested in database licensing, the intrigue of how complex geo-spatial based services are developed, electronic mapping and polygons, the legality of scraping, how online terms governing databases are construed, and database rights, then the recent UK decision in 77m Ltd v Ordnance Survey Ltd [2019] EWHC 3007 (Ch) (08 November 2019) is for you. [read post]
16 Aug 2019, 6:31 am
The applicability of Merchandising Corporation of America Inc v Harpbond Ltd [1983] FSR 32 was raised, where it was found that the facial makeup of Adam Ant was not protectable as it was not fixed in a tangible medium, and could be washed off. [read post]
24 Jul 2019, 6:22 am
Legal background regarding Arrow-declarations The underlying jurisdiction was established in Arrow Generics v Merck & Co Inc [2007] FSR 39 and approved by the Court of Appeal in Fujifilm v AbbVie [2017] EWCA Civ. 1. [read post]
14 May 2019, 8:01 am
Gear Inc v Hi-Tech Sports plc [1992] FSR 121, Morritt J stated "…it seems to me that 'reason to believe' must involve the concept of knowledge of facts from which a reasonable man [person] would arrive at the relevant belief. [read post]
11 Mar 2019, 10:07 am
In 2012 they acquired these patents from Aware Inc. [read post]
12 Oct 2018, 4:17 pm
Gulati [2015] EWHC 1482 (Ch) [2016] FSR 12- which allowed damages for phone hacking – was not a DPA case. [read post]
20 Jun 2018, 2:33 am
Particular reliance was placed upon the decision of the Court of Appeal in Durant v Financial Services Authority [2004] FSR 573. [read post]
17 Nov 2017, 8:58 am
Tristan Sherliker (Bird & Bird) reports on a recent decision of Mr Justice Birss in Accord Healthcare Ltd v Research Corporation Technologies Inc [2017] EWHC 2711 on the issue. [read post]
26 Oct 2017, 4:52 am
In Lockton v Persons Unknown and Google Inc [2009] EWHC 3423 (QB). the court questioned whether it had jurisdiction to make an order against a company based in the United States without a place of business in England. [read post]
24 Apr 2017, 8:37 am
Houses of Parliament Source Wikipedia Jane Lambert The action arising from groundless threats has been one of the most perplexing features of our intellectual property law both for foreign owners of IPR in this country and their legal advisors (see Prince Plc v Prince Sports Group Inc [1998] FSR 21) and even non-specialist lawyers in the United Kingdom (see Brain v Ingeledew [read post]
19 Dec 2016, 6:04 am
This comes from Best Buy Co Inc v Worldwide Sales Corporation Espana [2010] Bus LR 1761 at para 15; on appeal at [2011] FSR 742 at para 24.Was the German letter a groundless threat? [read post]
1 May 2016, 12:08 am
In that case, Lewison LJ agreed with Kitchin LJ’s reliance on an Australian case, Dart Industries Inc v Décor Corp Pty Limited [1994] FSR 567, in which the court had held that “… where a defendant has foregone the opportunity to manufacture and sell alternative products it will ordinarily be appropriate to attribute to the infringing product a proportion of the general overheads which would have sustained the opportunity. [read post]
25 Mar 2016, 2:11 pm
Such a declaration takes support from Arrow Generics Ltd v Merck & Co Inc .FKB's declaration intends to establish that its products were anticipated or obvious at the priority dates of the two patents. [read post]
14 Mar 2016, 9:46 am
The Court of Appeal drew assistance from the Australian case of Dart Industries Inc v Decor Corp Pty Ltd [1994] FSR 567 which involved an account of profits. [read post]
15 Dec 2015, 6:26 am
Molycorp and Zamr are indirect subsidiaries of Molycorp Inc, a US company who petitioned for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in June 2015. [read post]
22 May 2015, 10:38 am
They claimed damages under the cross undertaking given by AstraZeneca, seeking £32 million in respect of their losses.The law on the calculation of damages under a cross-undertakingIn his January 2014 judgment, Sales J referred to the judgment of Norris J in Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex Inc [2008] EWC 2347, [2009] FSR 3 as explaining the general principles to be applied when assessing the damages payable under a cross-undertaking. [read post]
