Search for: "Does 1 - 35" Results 141 - 160 of 9,711
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Mar 2024, 6:08 am
  First, a set of Draft Principles were circulated in November 2010.[1]  After a period set aside for public comment and following revision of the text,[2] the SRSG circulated the final version of the UNGP (with an included Official Commentary) in March 2011 annexed to his (final) 2011 SRSG Report,[3] the text of which was substantially revised from the circulated November 2010 Draft. [read post]
1 Mar 2024, 11:01 am by Dennis Crouch
Regarding the 35 USC § 101 rejection, the PTAB determined that claim 1 was directed to an abstract idea of “mathematical concepts and concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind or with the assistance of pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). [read post]
1 Mar 2024, 6:18 am by Jan von Hein
For the claims of the State of Ukraine, a clear basis for international jurisdiction does not exist when it acts in its state function. [read post]
29 Feb 2024, 10:06 am by Dennis Crouch
However, the PTAB entered a new ground of rejection for claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
28 Feb 2024, 11:22 pm by Donald Dinnie
Mokgoke v Momentum Insure Company Limited (NCT/279251/75(1)(b) – Rule 34) [2023] ZANCT 35 (20 September 2023) The applicant submitted a claim to his insurer, water leakage of his motor vehicle in June 2020. [read post]
28 Feb 2024, 10:30 pm by Marjut Salokannel
(recital 37a) … Where a Member State does not introduce a specific right to object in accordance with article 35F of this regulation, solely Article 21 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 will apply. [read post]
27 Feb 2024, 11:15 am by Brett Trout
If you have an edge case or if it is unclear how the foregoing guidance applies to a particular fact pattern, it is best to review your particular facts directly in light of existing case law, such as Pannu, and governing statutes, such as 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 115. [read post]
27 Feb 2024, 10:02 am by Dennis Crouch
by Dennis Crouch Earlier this week, the USPTO published updated examination guidelines regarding obviousness determinations under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
26 Feb 2024, 12:28 am by centerforartlaw
”[1] – ‘Stable Diffusion Litigation’ (website created by attorneys on behalf of the artists) “If a work is transformative…then it’s not a violation of copyright and the plaintiff simply has no ground on which to stand to file a copyright infringement case…[T]hose who refuse to acknowledge advancements in technology and instead fight against them are like whittlers mad at power tools. [read post]
23 Feb 2024, 7:30 am by Guest Blogger
Though Robert notes that he began working on the book 35 years ago (xxv), he has borne that burden well. [read post]
21 Feb 2024, 10:14 am by Robin E. Kobayashi
§ 10786(i)(1) for medical-legal evaluator’s attorney’s fees and costs… Shamsian (Eliza) v. [read post]
21 Feb 2024, 12:48 am by David Pocklington
As a basis for decision-making on allegations or concerns about child and adult protection, this is inappropriate and does not reflect statutory guidance. 18. [read post]
19 Feb 2024, 9:12 am by Marcel Pemsel
Art. 7(1)(b) EUTMR and § 8(2) no. 1 German Trade Mark Act respectively), which the Court had to assess. [read post]