Search for: "Lowry v. Lowry"
Results 101 - 120
of 195
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Apr 2013, 11:25 am
Lowry, 323 F.3d 805, 811 (9th Cir. 2003). [read post]
29 Jul 2017, 4:22 pm
In a recent decision, Devore-Thompson v. [read post]
1 Nov 2011, 7:54 am
The defence is “not entitled to pursue every potential medical possibility” to address the plaintiff’s subjective complaints: Lowry v. [read post]
11 Feb 2008, 1:18 pm
See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579 (Fed. [read post]
26 Dec 2011, 3:03 am
. : Federation Press, 2010 v, 250 p. : ill. ; 21 cm. [read post]
5 Sep 2013, 8:40 am
Lowry, 323 F.3d 805, 811 (9th Cir. 2003) ("It is true, of course, that a combination of unprotectable elements may qualify for copyright protection."); Knitwaves, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Feb 2018, 11:38 am
Lowry, which considered whether a life-like jellyfish sculpture in clear glass could be protected. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 11:56 am
Lofts, Steve Lowry, Gregory V. [read post]
26 Feb 2019, 5:55 am
Supp. 2d 495 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); Satava v Lowry, 323 F. 3d 805 (9th Cir. 2003)). [read post]
26 Apr 2013, 9:03 am
Lowry: are these actually being certified? [read post]
13 Mar 2013, 12:15 am
V. [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 1:35 pm
With a wide range of slides (including a Damien Hirst shark sighting), there was also time to talk about Christopher Lowry’s work as discussed in Satava v Lowry, a 2003 case. [read post]
6 May 2021, 6:18 am
Co. v. [read post]
16 Jan 2024, 6:04 am
On 8 January 2024, the High Court of Northern Ireland handed down judgment in the case of Kelly v O’Doherty [2024] NIMaster 1 [pdf]. [read post]
10 May 2007, 10:39 am
Meng (NFP) - "The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it qualified Joyce Lowry as an expert. [read post]
26 Feb 2019, 7:07 am
Servs., Inc. v. [read post]
13 Dec 2023, 9:05 pm
Adding complexity to this narrative, Lowry (2022) shows that private firms’ governance structures increasingly resemble those of public firms. [read post]
2 Apr 2009, 12:44 am
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. [read post]
31 May 2007, 5:15 am
Lowry maintained that the supposed mark is a non-distinctive background design that does not function as a mark. [read post]
