Search for: "Does 1 - 35"
Results 101 - 120
of 9,728
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Apr 2024, 9:01 pm
After all, every lawyer here knows what the test is to determine whether a crypto asset was offered and sold as an “investment contract,” and therefore a security: it’s the Howey test.[1] It’s not the “essential ingredients” test,[2] or the Beanie Baby test,[3] or some other test that industry folks might like to create for themselves. [read post]
3 Apr 2024, 9:13 am
The PTAB previously made two controversial rulings that were on appeal: (1) that under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) equivalents require explicit written description support and (2) that non-limiting Jepson claim preambles also require such support, even if they do not limit claim scope. [read post]
Jahiddi Williams: Security Negligence? Fatally Injured in Shooting Outside Colorado Springs, CO Bar.
3 Apr 2024, 7:56 am
As reported by Gazette.com, “officers received reports at 12:35 a.m. [read post]
2 Apr 2024, 11:02 am
App. 35 (2002). [read post]
2 Apr 2024, 8:44 am
” 35 U.S.C. [read post]
2 Apr 2024, 6:28 am
“It does not matter if there is one state or 50 states in the plan—the methodology and the result for any particular state would remain the same” (at 35). [read post]
2 Apr 2024, 6:01 am
And how does it differ from legal events? [read post]
2 Apr 2024, 3:58 am
Mar. 27, 2024), the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a patent infringement lawsuit, holding that the asserted claims of Rady’s US10469250 were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
31 Mar 2024, 4:00 am
Nothing prevents Parliament from affirming, as it does in s. 18(1) of the Act, that Indigenous peoples have jurisdiction to make laws in relation to child and family services. [read post]
28 Mar 2024, 7:27 am
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a split final written decision holding claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 10–13 unpatentable based on the combinations of Keitler/Briggs (Ground 1) and Bridges/Briggs (Ground 3). [read post]
28 Mar 2024, 2:21 am
It is unfortunate that, whilst it does not suggest any alteration in the works proposed, it does raise urgent concern about the stability of the painted ceiling which will require a detailed condition survey which, the conservators advise should be before the works, the subject of this faculty, commence. [read post]
27 Mar 2024, 4:46 pm
Introduction to the § 271(e)(1) Safe Harbor The safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. [read post]
27 Mar 2024, 3:39 pm
Yet, it does not justify an interpretation of the Constitution that tolerates let alone sustains corporate infringement of individual rights and encroachment on governmental powers. [read post]
27 Mar 2024, 10:56 am
Meril invoked the safe harbor of 35 USC § 271(e)(1), and the district court granted Meril’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement due to the safe harbor. [read post]
27 Mar 2024, 5:53 am
35. [read post]
27 Mar 2024, 4:00 am
The result could thus be 8-1, with only Justice Alito refusing to go along with any ruling that does not restrict abortion; he would get (and deserve) a lump of coal. [read post]
26 Mar 2024, 6:12 am
Marlene Gebauer 1:07 Yeah. [read post]
26 Mar 2024, 3:38 am
However, Article 17(11) specifies that such freedom does not extend to certain sectors, including copyright and neighbouring rights, with the CJEU in its judgment in OSA [Katpost here] highlighting that this exclusion also applies to the activities of CMOs. [read post]
25 Mar 2024, 11:30 pm
Constituencies comprising more than 35 seats are obliged to set a threshold of at least two percent. [read post]
25 Mar 2024, 12:50 pm
Rather, in Question 1 and Question 2 (following the working translation provided by the CJEU; C-795/23), the Court asked (emphasis added):1. [read post]
