Search for: "Doe Nos."
Results 241 - 260
of 2,055
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Aug 2007, 3:42 am
Matthews, Nos. 05-1655, 05-1925 (8/7/07) says that there is no due process or federalism problem in doing so. [read post]
11 Nov 2012, 9:05 pm
., Nos. 2011-1553, 2012-1017, 2011-1559, 2012-1016 (Fed. [read post]
13 Jul 2008, 2:01 pm
May 7, 2008) (not precedential)Nos. 02-3821 and 05-4686277 Fed. [read post]
25 Sep 2009, 1:58 pm
Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, Case Nos. 07-3341 & 08-1691. [read post]
24 Mar 2011, 3:25 am
In re Retail Royalty Company, Serial Nos. 77791067 and 77979784 (March 9, 2011) [not precedential].The numerous proffered dictionary definitions were consistent in defining "outfitter" as "a shop that provides equipment for a specific purpose. [read post]
24 Apr 2008, 5:00 am
Tash's advertising promotes the functional benefits of the product designs, and does not promote the designs as trademarks. [read post]
18 Jul 2011, 1:11 pm
The SPD does not meet the applicable requirements of ERISA, and estoppel is warranted. [read post]
3 Jan 2008, 11:17 am
. ___, Nos. [read post]
1 Jul 2011, 8:54 am
But that does not mean that they do not have an obligation under federal law to monitor the adequacy of their warnings. [read post]
3 May 2012, 8:52 pm
Mill’s deep commitment to libertarianism, which reflects the same anti-authoritarian spirit that moves many libertarians today, does not condemn the minimum coverage provision. [read post]
1 Nov 2013, 1:48 pm
Ret, Case Nos. 12-2479, 12-2507. [read post]
3 Dec 2007, 7:30 am
., Nos. [read post]
21 Aug 2006, 9:30 am
Patent Nos. 6,653,481 (process patent) and 6,858,738 (compound patent; a divisional of the '481). [read post]
23 Nov 2010, 4:48 am
The court has also said that it will not entertain costs applications in future cases, but presumably this does not apply to the 2,500 or so cases which have already been launched. [read post]
23 Nov 2011, 12:09 pm
Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case Nos. 09-36100, 10-35043, 10-35052, 10-35053, and 10-35054. [read post]
26 Oct 2022, 3:37 am
., Application Serial Nos. 90093231 and 90093238 (October 24, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Marc A. [read post]
12 Feb 2014, 5:09 am
However, the examining attorney does not explain what she means by “membership services,” nor does she explain the nature of the membership services that are supposedly offered by the advertisement. [read post]
7 Nov 2023, 10:43 am
The Federal Circuit also reiterated the standards for a judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) of non-obviousness, and clarified that “by means of” claim language does not limit to but-for causation, i.e., it does not mean “by the exclusive means of. [read post]
13 Jul 2017, 10:38 am
(PRSS Nos. 67-69; see also Winkfield's response to RFA Nos. 15 and 18.) [read post]
28 Aug 2021, 8:06 am
In response, Plaintiff argued that its complaint does meet the plausibility pleading standard as set forth in Ashcroft v. [read post]
