Search for: "Does 1-35"
Results 2641 - 2660
of 9,567
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Jul 2018, 10:29 pm
The AIA does allow the original inventor to overcome the third party’s patent application as prior art by arguing that the original inventor was the first to publish under 35 USC 102(b)(1)(B) and (b)(2)(B). [read post]
23 Aug 2012, 3:00 am
Under FRAP 41(d)(1), the filing of the petition stays the mandate, unless the court orders otherwise. [read post]
13 Jul 2011, 9:11 pm
This does not appear to have been done in this case.What does this grant of en banc review mean? [read post]
27 Dec 2013, 6:00 am
Under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
22 Mar 2010, 8:44 am
In a 9-2 decision, an en banc Federal Circuit has confirmed that 35 USC § 112 ¶1 includes separate written description and enablement requirements. [read post]
19 Oct 2021, 6:55 am
In that decision, the Federal Circuit recognized that 35 U.S.C. [read post]
22 Mar 2007, 12:50 pm
Pediatric exclusivity does not attach to the end of a patent term extension under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
26 Jul 2018, 3:00 am
First, Iran does not explicitly cite violations of the JCPOA as one of the elements of the judgment it requests, presumably because the ICJ does not have jurisdiction to entertain claims against the United States other than those based on the 1955 treaty. [read post]
8 Mar 2013, 2:00 pm
With a first plea, the claimant asserted invalidity in light of Articles 52(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation EC 40/94 (now Articles 53(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation EC 207/2009 - CTMR), for likelihood of confusion with the earlier national trade mark DANIEL & MAYER MADE IN ITALY, registered by the claimant in Italy in 1981 for goods in Class 25. [read post]
6 Mar 2014, 9:06 pm
The article was created for general guidance on matters of interest only, and does not constitute legal advice. [read post]
25 Oct 2013, 5:00 am
Rasouli contended that the withdrawal of life support that does not provide any medical benefit to the patient does not require consent as it does not constitute a “treatment” as defined in the HCCA. [read post]
25 Oct 2013, 5:00 am
Rasouli contended that the withdrawal of life support that does not provide any medical benefit to the patient does not require consent as it does not constitute a “treatment” as defined in the HCCA. [read post]
29 Apr 2019, 5:01 am
The proposal would rise roughly $1 trillion. [read post]
5 Jun 2014, 7:20 am
The evidence of use relied upon The mark in useED submitted:1. [read post]
11 Nov 2014, 12:10 pm
Note, for example pages 29-35, 41-43 and 77-82. [read post]
13 Nov 2009, 11:48 am
§ 120 and 37 CFR1.78(a)(1) – (a)(3) for prior nonprovisional applications and 35 U.S.C.119(e) and 37 CFR1.78(a)(4) – (a)(6) for provisional applications. [read post]
4 Aug 2006, 8:56 am
The relevant claims are: 1. [read post]
6 Sep 2011, 1:10 pm
The “Safe-harbor” Provision, 35 U.S.C. [read post]
7 Sep 2011, 9:29 am
” 35 U.S.C. [read post]
9 Jun 2011, 2:00 am
I would expect to see more controversies related to both Bayh-Dole and FilmTec-style contracts in the near future. [1] See 35 U.S.C. [read post]
