Search for: "State v. Shank"
Results 1 - 20
of 134
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 May 2014, 12:15 am
In particular he stated that 'there was no suggestion from either party that the Shanks patents were crucial to Unilever’s success. [read post]
23 May 2023, 7:51 am
The post KEVIN LEE PIERCE, JR. v. [read post]
30 Apr 2019, 6:22 am
Aisling O’Dwyer, an associate in the IP team and Ella Wells, a trainee patent attorney at CMS, comment on the decision which is awaited in the matter of Shanks v Unilever Plc & Ors. [read post]
8 Apr 2021, 6:20 am
If there is a place in the world to come for iconic copyright disputes, then surely the 1990’s Israeli case of Kimron v. [read post]
1 Nov 2019, 9:16 am
Since the release of the UK Supreme Court's decision in Unilever v Shanks [2019] UKSC 45 (IPKat post here) the mainstream and social media have been awash with hyperbole as to the potential impact of the decision on large employers. [read post]
25 Apr 2025, 11:14 am
Widakusawa v. [read post]
9 Jan 2012, 7:01 pm
” That sounds an awful lot like the plausibility standard that the United States Supreme Court created for federal Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. [read post]
12 Apr 2009, 5:56 am
See United States v. [read post]
15 Jan 2013, 7:21 am
Diminished capacity, first recognized in the case of State v. [read post]
15 Oct 2011, 11:15 am
United States v. [read post]
18 Aug 2009, 6:33 am
In United States v. [read post]
17 Feb 2012, 9:14 pm
State v. [read post]
29 May 2008, 11:05 am
The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the Oregon State Board of Nursing (OSBN) in the case of Shank v. [read post]
4 Dec 2009, 12:56 am
' was the question before the court in Shanks v Unilever plc and others [2009] EWHC 3164 (Ch), a decision of Mr Justice Mann in the Patents Court, England and Wales, yesterday. [read post]
15 Aug 2010, 8:57 pm
Screen shot showing Loops’ “non-shank” prison toothbrushes STL readers may recall the Western District case of Loops, LLC v. [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 9:28 pm
The case cite is Loops LLC v. [read post]
28 Aug 2008, 6:25 am
In Shanks v. [read post]
29 Oct 2013, 5:58 am
United States – which he describes as a “rare criminal case where the defendant is right” – and Sprint Communications v. [read post]
21 Feb 2016, 4:30 am
The third case, United States v. [read post]
22 Dec 2010, 4:58 am
Rather, the manner in which Anand was injured — being hit without warning by a "shanked" shot while one searches for one's own ball — reflects a commonly appreciated risk of golf (see Rinaldo v McGovern, 78 NY2d 729, 733 [1991]). [read post]
