Search for: "Hoffmann v. Hoffmann" Results 81 - 100 of 462
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Dec 2007, 1:30 pm
That sums up the Fifth Circuit's decision today in Hyde v. [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 12:49 am
A few years ago it became possible for photo libraries to sniff the Internet for unlicensed copies of their photographs. [read post]
17 Feb 2016, 12:19 am
Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Genentech Inc. [2016] EWHC 188 (Pat) come across her desk a few weeks ago. [read post]
17 Jul 2017, 3:39 pm
 This GuestKat has noted with interest comments which suggest that this case opens the way to a doctrine of "file wrapper estoppel" in the UK, but wonders whether the case really goes much further than existing UK case law which has admitted reference to the file in cases of "admissions against interest" - see for example Rohm & Haas v Collag [2002] F.S.R. 28  and  Furr v Truline [1985] F.S.R. 553. [read post]
8 May 2016, 8:12 am by Howard Friedman
LEXIS 59514 (ED CA,May 3, 2016), a California federal magistrate judge allowed an inmate to proceed with his complaint that a change in regulations reduced the kinds of religious and cultural items that Native American inmates can possess.In Hoffmann v. [read post]
10 Sep 2008, 4:55 am
Patent No. 6,017,745 are invalid, and that the remainder of the asserted claims of the '745 patent are not infringed by Defendants-Appellees Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., Roche Diagnostic Systems, Inc., Roche Biomedical Laboratories, Inc., The Perkin Elmer Corporation, Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, Roche Diagnostic Corp., Laboratory Corporation of America, and Applera Corp. [read post]
11 Jun 2015, 4:34 am by Christopher Brown, Matrix
Lord Sumption, referring to Lord Hoffmann’s speech in Matadeen v Pointu [1999] 1 AC 98 and that of Baroness Hale in Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] 2 AC 557, stated that the principle of equality was “not a principle special to the jurisprudence of the European Union. [read post]
6 Jan 2009, 7:42 am
Hoffmann-La Roche Read the reviews: #1 to #5 #6 to #9 #10 to #13 [read post]
23 Jul 2011, 1:42 pm by James Hamilton
There will always be a penumbral area where views may reasonably differ, said Lord Hoffman and Dame Arden.In his opinion in Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs v William Grant & Sons Distillers Limited, Lord Hoffmann said that, although the requirement that the initial computation must give a true and fair view involves the application of a legal standard, the courts are guided as to its content by the expert opinions of accountants as to what the best current accounting… [read post]