Search for: "Does 1-35"
Results 2821 - 2840
of 9,567
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 May 2019, 7:03 am
Chopra said that he does not think that the DRW case set a new standard for CFTC manipulation cases. [read post]
21 Dec 2010, 11:36 pm
"Under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
7 Oct 2013, 11:06 am
John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). [read post]
10 Dec 2016, 11:31 am
" 35 USC § 102(a) and (b). [read post]
24 Jun 2014, 12:31 am
Over to Nick.Abstract and Observations The question presented in Alice was whether claims directed to a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating “settlement risk” are patent eligible under 35 U. [read post]
24 Aug 2012, 11:26 am
These include grounds that could be raised under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
10 May 2010, 11:26 am
§ 360b(b)(1). [read post]
7 Dec 2022, 4:00 am
These powers must, however, now be read together with s. 35(1). [read post]
8 Dec 2020, 9:00 pm
Sources: OECD, “Table II.1. [read post]
21 Aug 2023, 8:16 am
Patent Application Nos. 12/645,037 and 16/279,095 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
27 Sep 2022, 11:04 am
Common defenses in foreclosure suits include: 1. [read post]
1 Apr 2008, 8:27 am
At issue is that this back-and-forth exchange between an applicant and an examiner does not go on forever. [read post]
21 Jan 2018, 8:14 pm
§ 1581(a),[1] derived from a statute passed by the First Congress, the Act of Aug. 4, 1790, ch. 35, § 31, 1 Stat. 164, see United States v. [read post]
14 Jul 2021, 8:09 pm
Markell does business. [read post]
11 Oct 2022, 10:14 am
MPEP 2173.05(g) discusses functional limitations that do not invoke 35 USC 112(f), but can still render the claims indefinite. [read post]
11 Oct 2022, 10:14 am
MPEP 2173.05(g) discusses functional limitations that do not invoke 35 USC 112(f), but can still render the claims indefinite. [read post]
31 Dec 2013, 7:44 pm
Hargis Industries, Inc. 13-352Issue: (1) Whether the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s finding of a likelihood of confusion precludes respondent from relitigating that issue in infringement litigation, in which likelihood of confusion is an element; and (2) whether, if issue preclusion does not apply, the district court was obliged to defer to the Board’s finding of a likelihood of confusion absent strong evidence to rebut it. [read post]
14 Apr 2018, 5:19 pm
There are 35 cases in 11 states: Connecticut (2), Idaho (8), Illinois (1), Michigan (1), Missouri (1), New Jersey (7), New York (2), Ohio (2), Pennsylvania (9), Virginia (1) and Washington (1). [read post]
4 Jan 2008, 11:56 pm
View the article hereOk, now does Islam and the Mark of the Beast come to mind yet??? [read post]
12 Mar 2007, 10:58 pm
" She has some recommendations: "1. [read post]
