Search for: "Phillips v. Audio Active Ltd."
Results 1 - 11
of 11
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Jul 2007, 2:20 am
Audio Active Ltd.] is a disappointing opinion on many fronts. [read post]
10 Apr 2022, 10:03 am
” Phillips v. [read post]
25 Jul 2007, 10:29 am
Audio Active Ltd., No. 05-7017-cv (2d Cir. [read post]
5 Aug 2007, 2:24 am
Audio Active Limited, --- F.3d ---, 2007 WL 2090202 (2d Cir.). [read post]
2 Jan 2023, 3:58 am
Our international dispute resolution lawyers are handling a case right now (so I cannot discuss it other than very broadly) that caused us to review a case, Phillips v Audio Active Ltd., 494 F.3d 378 (2d Cir. 2007), where the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (this is one level down from the US Supreme Court) held that a contractual provision stating that proceedings “are to be brought in England” meant England was an “obligatory… [read post]
30 Jul 2007, 2:18 am
Audio Active Limited, defendants-appellees Subscription Required
U.S. [read post]
24 Apr 2022, 4:19 pm
On 13 April, Collins Rice J handed down judgment on meaning in the defamation case of Mehmood (Butt) v Dunya News Ltd [2022] EWHC 905 (QB). [read post]
10 Aug 2009, 6:45 am
We are handling a case right now (so I cannot discuss it other than very broadly) that caused me to review a case, Phillips v Audio Active Ltd., 494 F.3d 378 (2d Cir. 2007), where the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (this is one level down from the US Supreme Court) held that a contractual provision stating that proceedings "are to be brought in England" meant England sas an "obligatory venue," in contrast to a previous case where the… [read post]
8 May 2009, 10:00 am
: Warner Bros v V G Santosh (Spicy IP) Where do we go? [read post]
25 Jul 2008, 7:04 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Thinktank Global week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included: CAFC affirms validity and enforceability of Eisai’s compound patent on Aciphex; elucidates current standard for obviousness of chemical composition of matter patents: Eisai v Reddy’s Lab’s and Teva Pharma: (Orange Book Blog), (Patent Docs), (Patent Prospector), (IP Law360), (Hal Wegner), (Patent Baristas),… [read post]
28 Dec 2015, 2:51 am
In Europe, The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that the consent of a copyright holder does not cover the distribution of an object incorporating a work where that object has been altered after its initial marketing to such an extent that it constitutes a new reproduction of that work (Case C‑419/13, Art & Allposters International BV v Stichting Pictoright) with Eleonora opining that the decision means that that there is no such thing as a general principle of… [read post]
