Search for: "State v. K. T."
Results 221 - 240
of 3,505
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Feb 2014, 6:00 am
Cayetano, by Eric K. [read post]
31 Oct 2012, 2:52 pm
Commonwealth v. [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 6:10 pm
Andre and Scott K. [read post]
12 Aug 2015, 5:00 am
It begins by saying that “[t]here are some products which, in the present state of human knowledge, are quite incapable of being made safe for their intended and ordinary use. [read post]
8 Sep 2009, 11:37 am
Check out this case:It basically states that unless your lender actually signs your loan modification agreement then YOU DON'T HAVE A LOAN MODIFICATION.Has anyone actually gotten a signed loan modification? [read post]
26 Jul 2023, 12:32 pm
Joyce & Wicked Willow Press, LLC v. [read post]
8 Jun 2010, 11:05 pm
B-K Lighting v. [read post]
29 Mar 2019, 3:00 am
Behold Winklevoss Capital Fund v. [read post]
5 Jun 2019, 7:23 am
K. [read post]
17 May 2007, 10:11 pm
The Illinois state court (in the judicial hellhole of Cook County) awarded plaintiffs' attorneys Gary K. [read post]
15 Aug 2008, 4:50 pm
That raises the question of credit under R.C.M. 304(k), and other provisions.United States v. [read post]
17 Jul 2023, 8:32 am
In Yegiazaryan v. [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 5:01 pm
Nevertheless, the OD dealt with the objection in substance […] by stating that claims 1 and 2 of auxiliary request II were not limited to a single plant variety and were therefore allowable under A 53(b) and R 23b(4) EPC 1973. [23] Under these circumstances the objection under A 100(a) in conjunction with A 53(b) against product claims relating to tomato fruits cannot be regarded as a fresh ground of opposition which may be introduced in the appeal proceedings only with the… [read post]
7 Oct 2019, 10:09 am
One especially memorable case was Finkel v. [read post]
18 Apr 2020, 12:39 pm
Oxman, reviewing The Free Sea: The American Fight for Freedom of Navigation, by James Kraska and Raul Pedrozo Evan T. [read post]
23 Mar 2012, 9:52 am
Supreme Court’s decision in Kennedy v. [read post]
10 Apr 2013, 5:01 pm
As the present disclaimers have the purpose of restoring novelty over D4b, it is necessary in view of the criteria developed in decision G 1/03 for allowability of disclaimers introduced to restore novelty to determine whether D4b published between the priority date claimed and the filing date represents state of the art pursuant to A 54(3) or a disclosure pursuant to A 54(2). [6] In the context of assessing whether D4b is state of the art pursuant to A 54(3) or A 54(2), the… [read post]
22 Jan 2007, 9:53 am
Kenneth Thien, Karen K. [read post]
7 Nov 2011, 5:01 pm
MD1, dossier M1115], which is, as noted by the [patent proprietor] a compilation of general knowledge in the field of quenching steels when cooling them, shows these influences […].As a consequence, at least the elements C, Mn, Mo, V, W, Nb, Ti and B of the steel composition correspond to at least eight parameters that have an influence on the quenchability and, therefore, on the mechanical properties of this steel after quenching when cooling.The Board is of the opinion that even… [read post]
30 Jun 2019, 12:08 pm
Kamina, V. [read post]
