Search for: "1-8 Doe" Results 3041 - 3060 of 32,315
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Dec 2019, 4:00 am by Noel Semple
Overall argument: investing $1 in justice yields $1 + x in the long run: https://t.co/AnHYMyJ0bt? [read post]
8 Jul 2024, 10:07 am by Zachary Alper
The Board issued a final written decision holding claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 10-13 unpatentable as obvious under Grounds 1 and 3, and claims 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 not unpatentable under Grounds 2 and 4. [read post]
27 Jan 2009, 3:27 am
This had been settled law since Doe d. [read post]
27 Jan 2009, 3:27 am
This had been settled law since Doe d. [read post]
8 Jan 2014, 9:01 pm
Jan. 8, 2014).IssuePacific Coast, in its briefs, argued that prosecution history estoppel should not apply to design patents at all. [read post]
4 Feb 2013, 7:04 am
But the rule requires the consent of the surface owner for landfarming: RRC Rule 8 (16 TAC, Part 1, Sec. 3.8): (3) Authorized disposal methods. [read post]
29 Nov 2010, 1:41 pm by William W. Bell, Jr.
As mentioned in our prior article entitled “Here It Comes Again: Tax Increases in 2011”, starting January 1, 2011, the Federal Government will impose a $3.8 trillion tax hike if Congress does nothing to stop the tax increases coming into effect. [read post]
29 Dec 2012, 8:55 am by Susan Brenner
Kozlow, 8 N.Y.3d 554, 870 N.E.2d 118 (Court of Appeals of New York 2007) (quoting People v. [read post]
5 Jan 2013, 12:39 pm by Swaraj Paul Barooah
However, the Parliament of Australia has rebutted this argument using Art 8(1) and Art 17 of TRIPS which allows member states to adopt measures that are necessary for protecting the public health provided that those measures do not take away the legitimate interests of the owner of the trademark. [read post]
29 May 2015, 6:00 am by The Public Employment Law Press
The materials sought related to the investigation of two complaints filed with the Office of the Special Commissioner of Investigation for the New York City School District (SCI) concerning whether a speech that was given by an employee of the New York State Department of Education (DOE) at a public high school and later reproduced on DOE's website violated Chancellor's Regulations D-130(I)(B)(2), (I)(B)(8), and (I)(C)(1). [read post]