Search for: "State v. Nappi"
Results 1 - 20
of 26
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Jun 2017, 8:54 am
Joa, Inc. v Fameccanica Data SpA [2017] EWHC 1251 (IPEC). [read post]
23 May 2010, 7:01 pm
Like a dog owner who believes that rubbing a dog's nose in its own poo is a "learning exercise", or who allows their kid to sit in their soiled nappies as punishment, TSSG's Patrick HIndert continues to demonstrate his "fine parenting skills" with Spencer v Hartford-9. [read post]
16 Jul 2015, 6:46 am
The recent case of Nappi v. [read post]
23 Aug 2023, 5:36 am
” United States v. [read post]
31 Mar 2011, 3:51 am
The employee was injured during a lunch break [Nappi v Regan, 186 AD2d 855]; and 3. [read post]
21 Feb 2012, 8:01 am
" Gaudin, 415 F.3d at 1035; see also Whallon v. [read post]
2 Feb 2009, 10:39 am
See People v. [read post]
19 Jun 2017, 3:37 am
Application to amend nappy patent not so watertight - IPEC holds nappy patent invalid for added matter and lack of clarityNew Kat friend, Robyn Trigg (A&O) reports on HHJ Hacon’s judgment in Curt G. [read post]
15 Jul 2017, 5:11 am
The summary stated that the Supreme Court allows Eli Lilly's appeal and holds that Actavis' products directly infringe Eli Lilly's patent in the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Spain. [read post]
16 Nov 2008, 11:36 am
In layman's terms this means that you would not call a nappy a 'baby dry' and as such the term Baby Dry is not as a whole descriptive of nappies. [read post]
5 Jul 2017, 11:34 am
Patrick Huston, which “organizes, analyzes and synthesizes all of the 48 UTSA-adopting states’ published court opinions (state and federal). [read post]
1 Jul 2017, 12:00 am
The Court stated that the operators of said platform, playing an essential role in making the works available, are to be considered liable of copyright infringement. [read post]
2 Jul 2017, 2:23 am
The Court stated that the operators of said platform, playing an essential role in making the works available, are to be considered liable of copyright infringement. [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 1:00 am
Had they done so, Her Ladyship stated that she would have agreed with the minority decision in that case. [read post]
3 Oct 2023, 6:00 am
Capobianco v Ambach, 112 AD2d 640 [3d Dept 1985]). [read post]
3 Oct 2023, 6:00 am
Capobianco v Ambach, 112 AD2d 640 [3d Dept 1985]). [read post]
5 Nov 2011, 7:08 pm
See O’Connor v. [read post]
5 Nov 2015, 5:52 am
Triable issues of fact also existed regarding the presence of a causal link between the employee’s 2006 EEO complaint and her 2009 termination, said the court, denying summary judgment against her retaliation claim as well (Goode v. [read post]
6 May 2022, 8:30 am
Nelson v. [read post]
9 May 2019, 4:00 am
A reply is not meant to buttress allegations in the petition or to belatedly add assertions that should have been in the petition (Appeal of Nappi, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,300; Appeal of Caswell, 48 id. 472, Decision No. 15,920; Appeal of Hinson, 48 id. 437, Decision No. 15,908). [read post]
