Search for: "US v. Spears" Results 221 - 240 of 363
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Nov 2007, 9:00 am
The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) has announced additional features on their Canadian Patents Database and Decisions of the Commissioner of Patents.: (IPMenu), EuropeEU Council Agrees Blueprint For Patent Litigation System: (IP-Watch);  (IAM),OHIM releases press release - Tarzan yell musical notation trade mark was granted even though sonogram was refused: (IPKat), (OUTLAW), Wind turbine shape not registrable as a trade mark: (IPKat), (I/PUpdates), FranceFrench Industry… [read post]
14 Jun 2011, 6:14 pm by Gideon
In 2002, in the landmark decision Atkins v. [read post]
28 Nov 2017, 10:47 am by Garrett Hinck
An unsealed indictment filed in September charged the three men with using spear-phishing to gain unauthorized access to the companies’ networks and with using malware to exfiltrate valuable corporate data. [read post]
11 Feb 2010, 6:44 am by Steve Baird
This common marketing pitfall is reminiscent of another I previously blogged about: Staying on the Right Side of the Line: Suggestive v. [read post]
22 Jun 2006, 12:55 pm by Philip Mann
Today the Supreme Court decided NOT to hear the LabCorp v. [read post]
22 Jun 2006, 12:55 pm
Today the Supreme Court decided NOT to hear the LabCorp v. [read post]
7 May 2015, 7:08 pm by Kevin LaCroix
Instead, the set of approaches described above, when used jointly, may help companies reduce the risk of potentially being spear phished “to death” by bad actors. [read post]
6 Apr 2013, 11:18 am by Alfred Brophy
Spear; "South Carolina's Grand Jury Presentments: The Eighteenth-Century Experience" by Sally E. [read post]
9 Jul 2014, 9:29 am by Jonathan Bailey
Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday. 1: 5th Circuit Gets Tricky Trade Secret Case First off today, Bloomberg BNA reports that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals will review the case of Spear Marketing v. [read post]
16 Jun 2013, 3:49 pm by Kedar Bhatia
Spears 12-25Issue: (1) Whether the Fourth Circuit erred in holding that lawyers who obtain, disclose, or use personal information solely to find clients to represent in an incipient lawsuit – as opposed to evidence for use in existing or potential litigation – may seek solace under the litigation exception of the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA), 18 U.S.C. [read post]