Search for: "USA V. INDEPENDENT MEDICAL SERVICES," Results 21 - 40 of 118
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Jul 2013, 10:45 am by Bexis
USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1110 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding no chance of success of state-law claim against publisher of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders); Hardin v. [read post]
27 Jun 2015, 2:50 pm by MOTP
In a similar vein, albeit based on different reasoning, the Supreme Court recently also approved the removal of claims against nursing homes (and, by extension, all medical malpractice claims) from the court system by blessing arbitration agreements in admission contracts even if they are not compliant with Texas law. [read post]
10 Sep 2014, 9:00 am by Maureen Johnston
Internal Revenue Service 13-1269Issue: Whether, contrary to the Federal Circuit's decision in USA Choice Internet Services, LLC v. [read post]
8 Oct 2019, 4:07 am by Edith Roberts
” At The Federalist, Margot Cleveland weighs in on June Medical Services v. [read post]
30 Oct 2012, 4:00 am by Terry Hart
’ Section 101 of the Copyright Act provides that “the design of a useful article” or a work of art that embellishes a useful article is copyrightable to the extent that it is capable of existing independently of the utilitarian aspects of the article. [read post]
30 Oct 2012, 4:00 am by Terry Hart
 Indeed, the Copyright Office regulations make clear that a copyright may be issued for “a print or label that contains the requisite qualifications for copyright even though there is a trademark on it.” Moreover, the Amarige Box Design is physically separable from the perfume with which it is associated and thus does not even raise an issue of ‘conceptual separability.’ Section 101 of the Copyright Act provides that “the design of a useful article” or a… [read post]
7 Apr 2011, 1:16 pm by Bexis
”  Plaintiff does not claim that Medical Economics did test [the drug] and was aware of its addictive qualities but nonetheless failed to warn its readers of that fact.Libertelli v. [read post]