SEC v. CAPITAL GAINS RESEARCH BUREAU AND THE INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF 1940

被引：0

作者：

Laby, Arthur B. ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Rutgers State Univ, Sch Law, Camden, NJ 08102 USA

来源：

BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW | 2011年 / 91卷 / 03期

关键词：

FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION; LAW; VAGUENESS;

D O I：

暂无

中图分类号：

D9 [法律]; DF [法律];

学科分类号：

0301 ;

摘要：

引用

页码：1051 / 1104

页数：54

共 41 条

[21] “Virgin Atlantic Airways v. Zodiac Seats”Patents Act 1977, Sec. 77(1)–(4A) – Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited v. Zodiac Seats UK Limited
[J]. IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 2014, 45 (3) : 352 - 353
[22] “Car-Mounted Navigation System”Patent Act, Sec. 70 – Pioneer Co. Ltd. v. Navitime
[J]. IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 2013, 44 (3) : 363 - 363
[23] “G-Standard”Dutch Patent Act 1995 (Rijksoctrooiwet 1995), Sec. 53(1)(b) – Glaxo v. Pharmachemie
[J]. IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 2014, 45 (8) : 973 - 976
[24] “Plain Packaging”Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, Sec. 51(xxxi); Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 – JT International SA v. Commonwealth of Australia and British American Tobacco Australasia Limited v. The Commonwealth
[J]. IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 2013, 44 (1) : 105 - 112
[25] “Novelty – All Elements Rule”Patent Act, Sec. 29(1) – Tohr GmbH v. Rohm & Haas Co., Ltd.
[J]. IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 2013, 44 (2) : 242 - 242
[26] KAMEN V KEMPER-FINANCIAL-SERVICES-INC - THE SCOPE OF THE DEMAND REQUIREMENT IN SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTIONS UNDER THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940
HOFFMANN, CM
[J]. BUSINESS LAWYER, 1992, 47 (03): : 1333 - 1353
[27] ANNUITY COEPTIS: IS THERE A WAY TO AVOID AMERICAN EQUITY INVESTMENT LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. SEC BECOMING A HERALD FOR THE SEC GAINING REGULATORY CONTROL OVER ALL SECURITIES-RELATED INSURANCE PRODUCTS?
Hasan, Russell
[J]. CONNECTICUT INSURANCE LAW JOURNAL, 2010, 17 (01): : 253 - 285
[28] Comment: Discovery Orders and the Protection of Trade Secrets: “In Camera Proceedings/FOMA” and “KCM v. Viel”: Patent Act, Sec. 105 para. 1
Heath C.
[J]. IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 2017, 48 (8) : 997 - 1005
[29] “Antibacterial Composition”Patent Act, Sec. 36(6)(i) – Well-Being Biochemical Co., Ltd. v. The Commissioner of the Patent Office
[J]. IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 2013, 44 (3) : 364 - 364
[30] “Late-Filed Experimental Results”Patent Act, Sec. 29(2) – The Procter & Gamble Co. Ltd. v. Carl J. Roof
[J]. IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 2013, 44 (1) : 100 - 100

← 1 2 3 4 5 →