Search for: "Hughes v. Moore" Results 21 - 40 of 153
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Jan 2023, 6:01 pm by Dennis Crouch
  (3) At that point, Judge Hughes was added to the panel; and (4) Judge Hughes sided with Chief Judge Moore’s position. [read post]
22 Mar 2012, 6:47 am by 1 Crown Office Row
In a unanimous decision ([2012] UKSC 11) the Supreme Court allowed the appeal of  Times Newspapers Limited against a decision of the Court of Appeal ([2010] EWCA Civ 804) which had held that it could not rely on Reynolds qualified privilege. [read post]
3 Jun 2016, 7:04 am by Gene Quinn
The opinion by Judge Hughes, who was joined by Judge Moore and Judge Taranto, doubles the total of Federal Circuit decisions where claims in a software patent were deemed to be patent eligible because they are not abstract. [read post]
2 Oct 2008, 11:14 am
(William) Hughes, - Fed.Appx. - (6th Cir. 6/26/08), 2008 WL 2604249 (unpublished) (Moore & Clay, JJ; Rogers, J., concurring) (reversing downward variance as substantively unreasonable).Is that clear now? [read post]
7 Apr 2014, 12:11 pm by Dennis Crouch
(Judges Moore, Reyna and Hughes were on the panel). [read post]
10 Jul 2022, 10:16 am by Dennis Crouch
  The panel included Chief Judge Moore, and Judges Prost and Hughes. [read post]
21 Mar 2012, 10:22 am by INFORRM
In a unanimous decision ([2012] UKSC 11) the Supreme Court today allowed the appeal of  Times Newspapers Limited against a decision of the Court of Appeal ([2010] EWCA Civ 804) which had held that held that it could not rely on Reynolds qualified privilege. [read post]
8 Jan 2010, 2:30 pm by Matt C. Bailey
Connell, 316 F.3d 886, 896 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting that "this circuit does not favor denial of class certification on the basis of speculative conflicts"); Staton, 327 F.3d at 954; Moore v. [read post]
16 Aug 2018, 6:38 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
Footnote 3 recites:The en banc court formed of PROST, Chief Judge,NEWMAN, LOURIE, DYK, MOORE, O’MALLEY, REYNA,WALLACH, TARANTO, CHEN, HUGHES, and STOLL, CircuitJudges, considered whether 35 U.S.C. [read post]