Search for: "STATE v. WALTER" Results 61 - 80 of 1,801
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Jul 2023, 5:01 am by Eugene Volokh
But in any event, I wanted to pass this along, since this is to my knowledge only the second lawsuit over libel-by-AI, after Walters v. [read post]
8 Jul 2023, 4:33 pm by Barry Barnett
A change to venue law frees state attorneys-general from involuntary transfers of antitrust actions from their home states to distant forums handling multi-district litigation involving the same subject matter. [read post]
7 Jul 2023, 9:05 pm by Julia Englebert
Under this theory, the Supreme Court held in American Electric Power v. [read post]
Although the Court of Appeal was clear, in Neurim v Generics [2020] EWCA Civ 793, that deciding to uphold the lower court’s decision not to grant a pharmaceutical patent PI was based on the specific facts of that case, the Patents Court has subsequently refused two further pharmaceutical PIs (Neurim v Teva [2022] EWHC 954 (Pat) and [2022] EWHC 1641(Pat), and Novartis v Teva [2022] EWHC 959 (Ch)). [read post]
5 Jul 2023, 10:12 am by Jacob Wirz
, Deacon/Litman, Sohini, Walters) The clear-statement version of MQD requires Congress to provide specific pre-authorization and appears primed to decimate many broad delegations that undergird the administrative state. [read post]
2 Jul 2023, 1:37 am by Laurence Lai (Simmons & Simmons LLP)
Whilst the companies in this top five list are all outside the EU, the 39 member states of the EPO still account for over 45.4% of all opt-outs when looking at the country of the first-named applicant or proprietor. [read post]
19 Jun 2023, 8:56 pm by Josh Blackman
" And in 1996, Walter Dellinger, as head of OLC, repudiated Barr's views. [read post]
29 May 2023, 11:43 am by Kluwer Patent blogger
Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that the participating States in the UPC and UPCA agreement are not the same and that, in the case of the UPCA, they are not all EU Member States. [read post]
11 May 2023, 2:21 am by Aida Tohala (Bristows)
On 4 May 2023, a mere two weeks after the conclusion of the hearing, the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Sandoz and Teva v BMS. [read post]
The Regulation is not attempting to establish full transparency, but significantly improve the current state of transparency (or lack thereof) regarding essentiality of patents that are sought to be licensed. [read post]
Case date: 09 March 2023 Case number: No. 22-1907 Court: United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law. [read post]