Search for: "Justice v. Marvel, LLC" Results 1 - 20 of 42
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Jul 2015, 11:06 am
Supreme Court, in revisiting the issue in the case of Kimble v Marvel Entertainment, LLC (as reported by AmeriKat on June 30th), would provide some clarity. [read post]
22 Jun 2015, 8:18 am by Walter Olson
Marvel Entertainment, LLC is here: I see what you did there, Justice Kagan. pic.twitter.com/sxjm3396xB — Nicholas Bagley (@nicholas_bagley) June 22, 2015 Nice one, Kagan. [read post]
25 Jun 2015, 10:45 am by Michael Baniak
Marvel Entertainment, LLC, just handed down June 22, 2015, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the 50 year old holding  of  Brulotte v. [read post]
22 Jun 2015, 9:55 am by Jason Rantanen
Marvel Entertainment, LLC (2015) Download Opinion Opinion by Justice Kagan. [read post]
22 Jun 2015, 8:23 am
Marvel Entertainment, LLC, decided June 21, 2015).Bazinga! [read post]
22 May 2019, 9:01 pm by Vikram David Amar
Marvel Entertainment, LLC four years ago: “an argument that we got something wrong—even a good argument to that effect—cannot by itself justify scrapping settled precedent. [read post]
2 Aug 2015, 4:01 pm
.* Kimble v Marvel Entertainment: when post-expiry patent royalties meet stare decisisThe unsatisfying U.S. [read post]
15 Dec 2020, 1:40 pm by Adam C. Ragan
Standing 13 inches tall and weighing nearly 2 lbs., it was a marvel of its time. [read post]
4 Feb 2016, 4:47 am by SHG
Copyright © 2015 Simple Justice NY, LLC This feed is for personal, non-commercial and Newstex use only. [read post]
26 Mar 2018, 1:01 pm by Mark Walsh
As Justice Stephen Breyer put it in his 2005 opinion in Deck v. [read post]
31 Dec 2017, 5:12 pm by Wolfgang Demino
Did two justices on the Houston Court of Appeals just do Wells Fargo a big favor by preempting the Texas Supreme Court in gutting the statute of limitations? [read post]
1 Jul 2021, 8:48 am by Lisa Larrimore Ouellette
Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U.S. 446 (2015) (re-affirming prohibition on post-patent-expiration royalties, with some “safe harbor” practices advocated to soften the impact of the doctrine); Stanford University v. [read post]