Search for: "Webster v. U.s" Results 261 - 280 of 503
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 May 2014, 2:48 pm by Dennis Crouch
An explanation of the significance of new effect in established patent law can be found as long ago as 1822 in Evans v Eaton 20 U.S. 356 (1822) and its evidential nature was explained by Justice Bradley in Webster Loom v Higgins105 US 580 (1881), subsequently approved e.g. by Justice Brown in Carnegie Steel v Cambria Iron Co 185 US 402 (1902): It may be laid down as a general rule, though perhaps not an invariable one, that if a new combination and… [read post]
28 Feb 2014, 4:00 am by Simon Fodden
It’s fist-bump (v.); fist bump (n.) / gray (not grey) / and a 3-m hmmm. [read post]
6 Feb 2014, 3:57 am by Terry Hart
One of the most relevant and thorough is US v. [read post]
20 Jan 2014, 6:50 am by Kelly Phillips Erb
Daniel Webster is thought to have coined that phrase in his oral arguments in the Supreme Court case, McCulloch v. [read post]
11 Dec 2013, 10:50 pm by Peter Tillers
Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 56, 107 S.Ct. 989, 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987); see also Chambers v. [read post]
15 Nov 2013, 8:00 am by Tim Sitzmann
Webster would disagree with the CIVC on this point. [read post]