Search for: "US v. Love" Results 2141 - 2160 of 9,416
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Sep 2012, 6:41 pm by Leonid Kravets
 This standard regarding the “machine” appears to be a lot more restricting than the machine-or-transformation test which the Supreme Court in Bilski v Kappos found to be a “a useful and important clue, an investigative tool, for determining whether some claimed inventions are processes under § 101. [read post]
28 Jul 2014, 12:29 pm by Brian Clarke
In short, the court applied strict scrutiny because the Virginia law abridges the fundamental right to marry (see Loving v. [read post]
3 Jun 2020, 8:15 am by John Elwood
The government’s brief in opposition includes those words every petitioner loves to read: “[A] circuit conflict currently exists on the question presented. [read post]
15 Jun 2010, 8:36 am by Jay Willis
At the Sentencing Law Blog, Douglas Berman and Margaret Colgate Love discuss yesterday’s decision in Carachuri-Rosendo v. [read post]
27 Oct 2007, 7:21 am
Scott joined us at the federal district court hearing of AAR v. [read post]
27 Apr 2015, 3:56 am
Find out in this Jeremy's post.* The case against patents: what does first-mover advantage tell us? [read post]
11 Nov 2008, 6:44 am
California and, with Justice Souter joining, Zamudio v. [read post]
17 Nov 2014, 3:35 am by Amy Howe
A friendly reminder:  We rely on our readers to send us links for the round-up. [read post]
13 Apr 2015, 12:50 pm
This is the forty-first collation of notes on the previous week's Katposts from our dedicated colleague and former guest Kat Alberto Bellan, who never lets us down. [read post]
22 Dec 2011, 4:36 pm by Michael Froomkin
Another is his support for what we used to call isolationism, but Paul wishes to rebrand as loving our foreign friends. [read post]
14 Oct 2014, 5:51 am
Don loves his henley; you will too. [read post]
27 Mar 2011, 11:12 pm by Marie Louise
Geoquip (Patently-O) (Patents Post Grant Blog) CAFC: Using foreign infringement judgment to prove infringement in the US: Quad/Tech v. [read post]