Search for: "Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc." Results 141 - 160 of 165
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Aug 2011, 10:00 pm by Gordon Firemark
Copyright owners win broader rights for works made abroad Thompson Reuters: John Wiley & Sons Inc v. [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]
14 Mar 2017, 7:33 am by Ronald Mann
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., might suggest that the present group of justices has a strong inclination to protect purchasers; any such inclination would provide further support for the alleged infringer. [read post]
22 Jan 2016, 8:12 am by John Elwood
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 15-375, which concerns the standard for prevailing parties to obtain attorney’s fees under the Copyright Act; Encino Motorcars, LLC v. [read post]
28 Oct 2013, 1:09 pm by Mary Minow
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 133 S.Ct. 1351 (2013), impact the ability of right holders to offer their works at different prices and different times in different online markets? [read post]
6 Jul 2012, 7:12 am by Rachel Sachs
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [read post]
21 Mar 2017, 2:43 pm by Ronald Mann
There is a recent case (Kirtsaeng v John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,) in which the justices adopted a broad rule of exhaustion under copyright law, but that case affords little guidance because the Copyright Act, unlike the Patent Act, codifies the exhaustion doctrine. [read post]
2 Dec 2016, 8:19 am by John Elwood
The petitioner in Water Splash, Inc. v. [read post]