Search for: "Smith v. U.s.*"
Results 301 - 320
of 1,479
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Sep 2019, 2:53 pm
“The POP’s interpretations of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) qualify for deference under Chevron U.S.A. v. [read post]
12 Feb 2021, 12:56 pm
” Smith v. [read post]
Review of the Effects of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act on Third Party Participation Applicants
1 Feb 2012, 9:15 am
McEwen* Introduction In the article included in the Stein McEwen Newsletter entitled Overview of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act: What Is The Practical Effect of First-to-File for Patent Applicants (October 2011), the novelty portions of the American Invents Act were explored. [read post]
6 Oct 2009, 8:58 am
Smith, 229 F.3d 992, 996 (10th Cir.2000), and In re U.S. [read post]
28 Feb 2020, 9:21 pm
"United States v. [read post]
28 Jun 2020, 3:24 pm
Smith, 959 F.3d 701, 704 (6th Cir. 2020). [read post]
28 Sep 2023, 4:00 am
Ultimately, of course, the Supreme Court vacated the Trump administration’s rescission of DACA in 2020 when—by a 5-4 margin, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority—it decided Department of Homeland Security v. [read post]
18 Apr 2012, 7:01 am
By Mason Smith and David Fine On Monday, Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. [read post]
14 Oct 2007, 5:22 am
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm Smith's sentence. [read post]
16 Jul 2007, 11:18 pm
Smith, 1995 WL 535012, 4 (5th Cir.1995); Hendrix v. [read post]
18 Aug 2009, 11:04 am
The majority opinion is authored by Judge Fernandez and joined by Judge Randy Smith. [read post]
8 Apr 2014, 3:00 am
In Smith v. [read post]
7 Nov 2019, 10:00 am
In Arthrex Inc. v. [read post]
26 Apr 2011, 12:13 pm
Medina, 10-8003, for which we haven’t yet been able to obtain the briefs; and in Smith v. [read post]
22 Aug 2019, 8:00 am
FNU Tanzin v. [read post]
21 Feb 2014, 10:35 am
Smith v. [read post]
19 Jun 2007, 3:21 am
See Smith v. [read post]
6 Nov 2015, 6:42 am
Smith v. [read post]
5 Mar 2010, 11:48 am
It’s Jama v. [read post]
15 Dec 2014, 6:28 am
Clark v. [read post]
