Search for: "Sharps v. US Forest Service"
Results 1 - 20
of 25
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Feb 2015, 3:37 pm
Waltham have been here before – in Arfon Abdi v LB Waltham Forest. [read post]
10 Jan 2019, 10:00 pm
Below is a brief summary of issues before the Court last week: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. [read post]
4 Jun 2015, 7:25 am
The process announced today uses forest residuals – the wood scraps that are left over from logging operations – providing a value creating recycling opportunity for waste wood that is traditionally left in the forest, potentially becoming a forest fire hazard. [read post]
3 Jan 2020, 1:27 pm
Appʹx at 2336. ʺPre‐Existing Intellectual Propertyʺ is defined as ʺany trade secret, invention, work of authorship, mask work or protectable design that has already been conceived or developed by anyone other than MSEI before [Universal] renders any services under the Agreement.ʺ Id. [read post]
3 Jun 2012, 8:41 pm
US Forest Service. [read post]
11 May 2019, 11:47 am
Sharp, 441 S.W.3d 448, 451 (Tex.App. [read post]
7 Feb 2021, 4:53 pm
McKinney School of Law, Christine Nero Coughlin, Wake Forest University – School of Law. [read post]
4 Jan 2010, 3:23 am
: Catnic Components Ltd & Anor v Hill and Smith Ltd (Spicy IP) United States US Patents BPAI rules for ex parte appeals: Request for comment and notice of roundtable (Patently-O) Bilski and Warsaw share insights (AwakenIP) US Patents – Decisions CAFC: False marking statute applies on a per article basis: Forest Group, Inc v Bon Tool Co (GRAY On Claims) (EPLAW) (Washington State Patent Law Blog) You say tomato... [read post]
24 Jun 2018, 4:41 pm
On 21 June there was a statement in open court in West v 24 Seven Fostering Services before HHJ Parkes QC. [read post]
1 Oct 2023, 10:16 am
They and other users of the Tunstall system have been put in danger by the Defendant’s excessive use of, and damage to the Tunstall system. [read post]
16 Aug 2008, 2:43 am
– discussion of Washington Post article on Ismed’s efforts to promote follow-on biologics approval pathway: (Patent Baristas), (Patent Docs), US: Congressional fact-finding on follow-on biologics: (Patent Docs), US: David v Monsanto: Biotechnology patent ‘exhaustion’ after Quanta, Supreme Court petition: (Hal Wegner), US: Ulysses Pharmaceuticals announces issuance of patent for novel class of ant [read post]
7 Mar 2011, 4:22 am
On 1 March 2011, the Court of Appeal gave judgment in the case of Sousa v London Borough of Waltham Forest ([2011] EWCA Civ 194) – a case about tree root damage but of interest to media lawyers because the defendant sought to argue that the recent decision in MGN v UK meant that the success fee was not recoverable. [read post]
12 Dec 2021, 1:09 pm
The test adopted by the Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition, which allows the use of a person’s identity “in news reporting, commentary, entertainment, works of fiction or nonfiction, or in advertising that is incidental to such uses,” but not “if they are used in advertising the user’s goods or services, or are placed on merchandise marketed by the user, or are used in connection with services rendered by the… [read post]
29 Jan 2024, 4:35 pm
v=BxL9DRdk6Xc New Animation: End Hare Coursing In a world where compassion and empathy should be our guiding principles, it is disheartening to discover that some individuals derive enjoyment and profit from the suffering of innocent creatures. [read post]
20 Dec 2021, 5:30 am
On 13 December 2021 there was an application in the misuse of private information case of Global Processing Services (UK) v Yanpolsky before Collins Rice J. [read post]
1 Feb 2008, 12:00 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Thinktank Global week in Review at [feeds.feedburner.com]Highlights this week included:Google taking the profit out of domain tasting: (The Trademark Blog), (Canadian Trademark Blog), (Class 46), (Ars Technica),ECJ rules that EU law does not force disclosure of internet users’ details in file-sharing cases in Productores de Música de España (Promusicae) v Telefónica de… [read post]
28 Jan 2016, 4:00 am
But with one exception, the case law on the admissibility of electronic records and electronic discovery ignores them; see: R. v. [read post]
6 Feb 2012, 2:22 am
R. v. [read post]
21 Feb 2019, 4:00 am
The words we use provide a filter through which we view and acknowledge legal concepts. [read post]
5 Mar 2015, 11:08 pm
Landlords v. [read post]
