Search for: "Searle v. Searle"
Results 21 - 40
of 212
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Jun 2020, 2:08 pm
Searle & Hereth, leading to the passage of the 1905 trademark law within two years. [read post]
16 Sep 2008, 4:35 am
Searle, and posted on this blog, long ago, about Rochester v. [read post]
26 Dec 2015, 7:56 am
See the 2007 post on IPBiz:**In passing, the National Law Review has an article on the trade secret case: Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. [read post]
23 Jan 2018, 9:34 am
Bristol-Myers SquibbCo. v. [read post]
2 Feb 2012, 3:21 pm
On January 23, 2012, the Supreme Court announced its decision in National Meat Association v. [read post]
1 Jun 2016, 12:00 pm
On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Sheriff v. [read post]
18 Apr 2019, 6:06 am
The article provides three "case studies" for reasonable accommodations under the ADA, including Searls v. [read post]
18 Aug 2016, 2:29 pm
On June 9, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Puerto Rico v. [read post]
18 May 2023, 6:19 am
That's what happened here, except the Court of Appeals says plaintiff has no viable First Amendment claim.The case is Searle v. [read post]
11 Sep 2019, 1:00 pm
The second referral, Sandoz v. [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 3:04 pm
Business v. [read post]
22 Nov 2019, 3:16 pm
Prior holdings in Searle v. [read post]
22 Nov 2019, 3:16 pm
Prior holdings in Searle v. [read post]
17 Aug 2012, 2:00 am
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) Cornish Glennroy Blair-Ford v CRS Adventures Ltd [2012] EWHC 2360 (QB) (13 August 2012) High Court (Administrative Court) Nicklinson, R (on the application of) v Ministry Of Justice [2012] EWHC 2381 (Admin) (16 August 2012) Albion Water Ltd, R (on the application of) v Water Services Regulation Authority [2012] EWHC 2259 (Admin) (16 August 2012) Searle & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities and Local… [read post]
6 Dec 2006, 11:10 am
State of Indiana (NFP) Michael Searle v. [read post]
9 Apr 2019, 1:30 am
Bart van WezenbeekThe Court concluded that the compound darunavir was not protected by a patent within the sense of Art. 3 of the SPC directive because, following the CJEU decision in Teva v Gilead, it is necessary that the compound for which the SPC is granted can be specifically identified in the patent. [read post]
4 Nov 2013, 5:41 pm
Tomorrow, November 5, I’ll be speaking about the NLRB v. [read post]
17 Jan 2018, 1:25 pm
Searle & Co. (1984) 35 Cal.3d 691, 699-700.) [read post]
13 Sep 2011, 9:46 am
Law on International Commercial Arbitration and served as the Chair of the Arbitration Task Force of the Searle Civil Justice Institute. – In a press release dated the same day as the Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
27 Sep 2016, 9:10 am
A lively discussion of the English approach to obviousness as applied in the Hospira v Genotech patent revocation application. [read post]
