Search for: "Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc." Results 141 - 160 of 178
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Jul 2012, 5:36 pm by Lyle Denniston
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. — right to bring into the U.S. for resale a copyrighted item purchased abroad Tues., Oct. 30: 11-820 — Chaidez v. [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 7:26 am by Cormac Early
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., in which the Court will consider whether the first sale doctrine in copyright law applies to works manufactured abroad. [read post]
30 Aug 2012, 6:49 pm by Record on Appeal
John Wiley & Son – a case  involving gray market goods and copyright items;  Clapper v. [read post]
14 Jan 2016, 11:43 am by John Elwood
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 15-375, sequel to the successful case of that name from October Term 2012, wants to establish what the Copyright Act standard is for prevailing parties to obtain attorney’s fees. [read post]
18 Aug 2011, 10:00 pm by Gordon Firemark
Copyright owners win broader rights for works made abroad Thompson Reuters: http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2011/08_-_August/Copyright_owners_win_broader_rights_for_works_made_abroad_-court/ John Wiley & Sons Inc v. [read post]
30 May 2017, 1:35 pm by Ronald Mann
John Wiley & Sons holding that the exhaustion doctrine of copyright law (the “first sale” doctrine) “applies to copies of a copyright work lawfully made and sold abroad. [read post]
1 May 2013, 8:30 am by Conor McEvily
At JURIST, John Rothchild examines the possible impact of the Court’s recent decision in Kirtsaeng v. [read post]
30 Oct 2012, 8:20 am by Kiran Bhat
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., the Court considered whether copyrighted works made and purchased abroad can be bought and sold within the United States without the copyright owner’s permission. [read post]
9 Mar 2017, 6:02 am by Dennis Crouch
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 133 S.Ct. 1351 (2013), is not dispositive to show a common law basis for exhaustion. [11] See Brief of 44 Law, Business and Economics Professors, Impression Products, Inc. v. [read post]