<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Case of the Day: Lantheus Medical Imaging, Inc. v. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/08/10/case-of-the-day-lantheus-medical-imaging-inc-v-atomic-energy-of-canada-ltd/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/08/10/case-of-the-day-lantheus-medical-imaging-inc-v-atomic-energy-of-canada-ltd/</link>
	<description>The Blog of International Judicial Assistance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2024 17:12:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Case of the Day: Lantheus Medical Imaging v. Atomic Energy of Canada &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/08/10/case-of-the-day-lantheus-medical-imaging-inc-v-atomic-energy-of-canada-ltd/#comment-23341</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Case of the Day: Lantheus Medical Imaging v. Atomic Energy of Canada &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Dec 2024 18:11:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=1835#comment-23341</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] Chalk River LaboratoriesWe return today to Lantheus Medical Imaging Inc. v. Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd., a case involving a US letter rogatory in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Here is my brief summary of the underlying facts from my first post on the case: [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Chalk River LaboratoriesWe return today to Lantheus Medical Imaging Inc. v. Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd., a case involving a US letter rogatory in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Here is my brief summary of the underlying facts from my first post on the case: [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Case of the Day: Amaprop Ltd. v. Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd. &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/08/10/case-of-the-day-lantheus-medical-imaging-inc-v-atomic-energy-of-canada-ltd/#comment-23282</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Case of the Day: Amaprop Ltd. v. Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd. &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Dec 2024 02:48:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=1835#comment-23282</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] States national under 28 U.S.C. [section] 1783. I wrote about this issue in connection with the Lantheus case, where a US party improperly tried to serve a subpoena in [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] States national under 28 U.S.C. [section] 1783. I wrote about this issue in connection with the Lantheus case, where a US party improperly tried to serve a subpoena in [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Case of the Day: Lantheus Medical Imaging v. Atomic Energy of Canada &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/08/10/case-of-the-day-lantheus-medical-imaging-inc-v-atomic-energy-of-canada-ltd/#comment-252</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Case of the Day: Lantheus Medical Imaging v. Atomic Energy of Canada &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:01:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=1835#comment-252</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Here is my brief summary of the underlying facts from my first post on the case: In the underlying case, Lantheus Med. Imaging, Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., pending in the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Here is my brief summary of the underlying facts from my first post on the case: In the underlying case, Lantheus Med. Imaging, Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., pending in the [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Case of the Day: Lantheus Medical Imaging v. Zurich American Insurance Co. &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/08/10/case-of-the-day-lantheus-medical-imaging-inc-v-atomic-energy-of-canada-ltd/#comment-251</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Case of the Day: Lantheus Medical Imaging v. Zurich American Insurance Co. &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:48:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=1835#comment-251</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] reading. Way to go, Magistrate Judge Cott!Back in August 2011, we looked at an Ontario case, Lantheus Medical Imaging v. Atomic Energy of Canada, which involved a US letter rogatory to take testimony and documents from Atomic Energy of Canada, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] reading. Way to go, Magistrate Judge Cott!Back in August 2011, we looked at an Ontario case, Lantheus Medical Imaging v. Atomic Energy of Canada, which involved a US letter rogatory to take testimony and documents from Atomic Energy of Canada, [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
