Search for: "VIDAL V. STATE"
Results 81 - 100
of 249
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Jun 2022, 4:15 am
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on Tuesday announced that it has updated its interim guidance on the Director Review process under Arthrex v. [read post]
22 Jun 2022, 4:15 am
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on Tuesday announced that it has updated its interim guidance on the Director Review process under Arthrex v. [read post]
8 Jun 2022, 8:15 am
Vidal yesterday granted Director Review in both OpenSky Industries, LLC v. [read post]
8 Jun 2022, 8:15 am
Vidal yesterday granted Director Review in both OpenSky Industries, LLC v. [read post]
2 Jun 2022, 9:15 am
Following a late April request by Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI) to then newly-confirmed United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal asking her to respond to a number of questions surrounding abuse of the inter partes review (IPR) system, Vidal last week sent a letter explaining she is working on the problem. [read post]
1 Jun 2022, 9:04 am
In its May 2022 ruling in United States v. [read post]
31 May 2022, 6:48 am
Vidal, Appeal No 21-2347. [read post]
9 May 2022, 5:46 pm
Vidal are set for June 6, 2022. [read post]
4 May 2022, 12:15 pm
VLSI Technology LLC and Patent Quality Assurance, LLC v. [read post]
Arthrex on Remand: Commissioner of Patents Drew Hirshfeld and the Problem of Shadow Acting Officials
24 Mar 2022, 4:39 pm
(My colleague Rebecca Eisenberg and I have criticized United States v. [read post]
22 Feb 2022, 2:18 am
The Court found that the instance in question could be viewed as falling within the margin of appreciation accorded to member states: ‘the choice of the means calculated to secure compliance with article 8 of the Convention in the sphere of the relations of individuals between themselves is in principle a matter that falls within the contracting states’ margin of appreciation’, referencing the Grand Chamber in Bărbulescu v Romania ([125]). [read post]
21 Feb 2022, 9:36 am
[1] Bloomberg LP v ZXC, [2022] UKSC 5, available here: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2020-0122-judgment.pdf [2] Judgment, para 13 [3] Judgment, para 18 [4] Judgment, para 21 [5] Judgment, para 67 [6] Judgment, para 50 [7] Judgment, para 81 [8] Judgment, para 108 [9] Judgment, para 111 [10] Judgment, para 116 [11] Judgment, para 121 [12] Judgment, para 142 [13] Judgment, para 127 [14] Judgment, para 140 [15] Judgment, paras 154 and 155 [16]… [read post]
31 Jan 2022, 9:59 am
On 10 November 2021, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal in Lloyd v Google LLC [2021] UKSC 50, and unanimously dismissed Lloyd’s representative action brought against Google. [read post]
10 Jan 2022, 10:52 pm
By contrast, courts in California and Canada have found a contractual jurisdiction and applicable law clause invalid as a matter of public policy in order to allow a class action privacy claim to proceed against Facebook.[6] In England, the dual challenge of jurisdiction and collective actions in a mass privacy infringement claim has presented itself before the English Courts, first in Vidal-Hall v Google before the Court of Appeal in 2015[7] and in the Supreme Court judgment of… [read post]
17 Nov 2021, 6:34 am
In relation to the first question, the Supreme Court said it was correctly held in the Court of Appeal decision in Vidal-Hall v Google [2015] EWCA Civ 311 that section 13 of the DPA could not be construed as providing a general right to compensation for distress suffered as a result of a breach of the DPA “without contradicting the cl [read post]
10 Nov 2021, 3:29 am
This argument was founded on the Court of Appeal’s judgment in the case of Gulati v MGN, which concerned systematic phone hacking by journalists from the Mirror Group. [read post]
19 Jul 2021, 7:00 am
Batalla Vidal, et al. court order. [read post]
16 Jul 2021, 2:41 pm
The decision in Texas v. [read post]
21 Jan 2021, 4:36 pm
Alternatively, such proceedings may be brought before the courts of the Member State where the data subject has his or her habitual residence, unless the controller or processor is a public authority of a Member State acting in the exercise of its public powers. [read post]
8 Dec 2020, 2:23 pm
See Reinstatement of DACA Court Order Blog Post Batalla Vidal et al., v. [read post]
