Posts tagged with: "131"
Results 1 - 20 of 41
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Jul 2013, 12:00 pm by Maria
Senators Jim Beall and Ricardo Lara are lead authors of California Senate Bill 131 to amend California Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1 relating to childhood sexual abuse, statute of limitations and damages. SB 131 proposes to extend the statute of limitations in limited instances for civil actions involving childhood sexual abuse, as follows: Would retroactively apply the current statute of limitations for the commencement of civil actions against third parties regarding recovery of damages… [read post]
31 Jul 2013, 12:10 pm by Maria
California Assembly member Das Williams has successfully carried Assembly Bill 131, a voter registration bill, through the state legislature to provide that a person’s failure to identify his or her place of birth on an affidavit of registration would not preclude his or her affidavit from being deemed complete.  AB 131 has been enrolled and presented to the Governor for his consideration. AB 131 addresses the existing state law allows county elections officials to process voter… [read post]
17 May 2010, 3:57 pm by admin
Starting December 2009, USCIS started implementing changes on the way I-131 reentry permit applications are receipted and processed.   Previously, I-131 reentry permit applications were filed directly at the Nebraska Service Center (NSC) which issued receipts and, where appropriate, issued expedited processing biometrics notices. The NSC processing of expedited processing reentry permit biometrics allowed us to have the required biometrics scheduled often within 7-10 days after filing of the I-131… [read post]
12 Jan 2012, 8:52 am by admin
Many of our clients and readers are familiar with the requirement to submit to biometrics (digital fingerprinting and/or photograph, please see below) in connection with certain USCIS applications.    The biometrics are often taken at USCIS Application Support Centers (ASC) after a notice, showing a specific ASC address and appointment date/time, is issued and mailed to the applicant. Among the most common USCIS application types which require biometrics are I-485, Application to Adjust Status,… [read post]
24 Mar 2010, 12:18 pm by Randall Drew
USCIS: Change of Filing Location for Form I-131, Application for Travel DocumentRAD~ Are you confused yet? All this changing of filing this leading to something?Change of Filing Location for Form I-131, Application for Travel DocumentWASHINGTON - U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced revised filing instructions and addresses for applicants filing an [read post]
24 Mar 2010, 12:18 pm by Randall Drew
USCIS: Change of Filing Location for Form I-131, Application for Travel Document RAD~ Are you confused yet? All this changing of filing this leading to something? Change of Filing Location for Form I-131, Application for Travel Document WASHINGTON - U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced revised filing instructions and addresses for applicants filing [read post]
5 Sep 2011, 3:21 pm by kjr32
By Alicia M. Dodge, Albany Government Law Review Class of 2011 Introduction:                         Is a $250,000.00 cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases necessary?  The answer to this question will vary widely, depending whom you ask.  The New York State … Continue reading ? [read post]
15 Sep 2010, 9:43 am by admin
Our office often receives inquiries by clients about a piece of information displayed on the ASC Appointment Notices issued for the purpose of capturing biometrics.  Our clients are asking us what is the meaning of the “Code” field, found in the top right part of the ASC Appointment Notice. The “Code” field is intended to indicate the type of biometrics processing to be performed.  The possible values are: Code 1 – fingerprinting for 10 prints only. Code 2 – photo, signature and index… [read post]
27 Mar 2011, 3:25 pm by Gene Quinn
I think those that are against first to file are really most worked up about the loss of the across the board grace period for the statutory bar. If the problem is with the grace period let's talk about the grace period. Misdirection and demagoguing the first to file issue has lead to the weakness of the arguments being exposed and the likelihood that no meaningful debate on the real issue — the grace period — will be possible. I'm here to tell you that those who are making a big deal out of… [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 8:33 pm
Takeaway: The BPAI concluded that a swear behind declaration did not show reduction to practice because the supporting inventor documentation described the invention using future tense. Ex parte Knaus (Appeal 2009-0552, Appl. No. 09/822,261, Tech. Center 3600) Decided May 1, 2009 The Applicant submitted a swear behind declaration which alleged to show conception and reduction to practice before the effective date of the reference. However, the supporting exhibit consistently described the… [read post]
20 Mar 2011, 11:56 am by Gene Quinn
The date of invention relates to your conception. This is true whether you are engaging in an interference proceeding seeking to obtain a claim instead of another who is also seeking the claim, or you are attempting to demonstrate that you can get behind a reference used by an examiner because you have an earlier date of invention. The hallmark of a first to invent system is that those who file second can obtain a patent under very strictly limited scenarios. A byproduct of a first to invent… [read post]
6 Mar 2013, 9:43 pm by Dan Flynn
For the fourth year in a row, attempts in the Iowa General Assembly to make legal on- the- farm sales of unpasteurized milk and milk products have ended in failure. Legislative experts in Des Moines say all raw milk bills, including House Bill (HSB) 131 that also sought to allow raw milk farmers to deliver to consumers in town, are dead. State Rep. Jason Schultz, who chairs the Iowa House Local Government Committee, did not take up HSB 131 Wednesday and said the committee would not meet again before… [read post]
20 Jul 2012, 2:31 am
The Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act provides that local conservation commissions must issue a decision on a request for an “order of conditions” (what we in Massachusetts for some reason call our wetlands permits) within 21 days of the hearing on the application. On Monday, in Garrity v. Conservation Commission of Hingham, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that an applicant may waive the 21-day requirement. However, the SJC provided that, in order for such waivers to be valid, the… [read post]
4 Aug 2010, 4:18 pm by Jennifer Smythe
Re-entry permits are required for lawful permanent residents (“green card holders”) who intend to be outside the U.S. for 1 year or more but who want to preserve their immigrant status.  This includes those traveling, working, and/or residing abroad.  If a green card holder is going to be outside the U.S. for less than 1 year, a re-entry permit may not be required to maintain status.  Re-entry permits are generally granted for 2 years and cannot be extended.  However, a person with a… [read post]
5 Mar 2012, 2:00 am by Keith Paul Bishop
A few months after I joined the Business, Transportation & Housing Agency, a major earthquake struck the San Fernando valley.  Fifty-seven people lost their lives and thousands were injured.  Property damage was extensive and five highway bridges suffered complete or partial collapse.  The collapse of the Route 14/Interstate 5 Separation & Overhead severed a key north-south ground transportation route into Los Angeles.  In Los Angeles itself, the failure of the La Cienega-Venice Undercrossing… [read post]
29 Sep 2010, 3:10 am by W. Todd Baker
This past Monday the BPAI pointed out that a Patent Holder may not swear behind a patent that claims the same invention, the proper forum for such a priority contest being a patent interference proceeding. The decision, Ex parte Regents of the University of California (“Regents”) (decision here), affirmed-in-part the rejection of U.S. patent No. 5,916,912 in ex parte reexamination.  In particular, the Board held that Regents could not antedate U.S. Patent No. 5,998,474… [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 8:59 am by admin
There have been rumors and speculation on this topic (which we did not report until we had final confirmation), but now it is official.  USCIS has announced that they will start issuing a combined Employment Authorization Document (EAD) and Advance Parole (AP) card for some applicants for adjustment of status. The new combined EAD/AP card (I-766) looks like this sample image and has an annotation at the bottom reading “SERVES AS I-512 ADVANCE PAROLE.”    The new card would replace the… [read post]
28 Jul 2012, 5:30 am by Gene Quinn
Even when we switch to first to file inventors will still in some cases need to be able to detail when they conceived of various aspects of their invention if they are going to attempt to rely upon the grace period. Affidavit practice to establish what was invented, when it was invented and that someone else derived their invention or disclosure from you will still be a part of patent practice even after March 16, 2013. Therefore, it is critical now to have an invention record and will similarly… [read post]
As an immigration attorney, my goal is to help people get green cards and U.S. citizenship. One of the most important privileges that you gain with US citizenship is the right to file an immigration petition (Form I-130) for your mother and father. But before helping your parents get green cards, you need to think through this decision and weigh your immigration options carefully. How to lose your green card status Before you help your parents get green cards, keep in mind that when someone with… [read post]
17 Sep 2011, 7:06 am
Takeaway: In evaluating a declaration under § 1.131 (swear-behind), the BPAI noted that the declaration did not comply with the required formalities. Specifically, the declaration named a single inventor as declarant but was signed by all four inventors. The Board went on to find that the declaration lacked sufficient evidence of both conception and diligence, and then affirmed the prior art rejection since the Applicant made no substantive arguments against obviousness. Details: Ex parte… [read post]