Search for: "Does 1-37"
Results 3241 - 3260
of 5,286
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Sep 2013, 7:17 am
§ 121. 37 C.F.R. [read post]
12 Sep 2013, 2:00 pm
The first sentence in of 37(c)(1) seems mandatory to us. [read post]
10 Sep 2013, 10:53 am
Id. at 1. [read post]
8 Sep 2013, 3:12 pm
It does hardly anything for us. [read post]
6 Sep 2013, 1:45 pm
So does every other member of the infield. [read post]
4 Sep 2013, 5:22 pm
” In re Adler, at *8 (text added).[2] “While the Board’s explanation may go into more detail than the examiner’s, that does not amount to a new ground of rejection. [read post]
3 Sep 2013, 4:00 am
”9 Thus, we can break theft of movable property under the Model Penal Code into three elements: (1) unlawful taking or control, (2) of movable property of another, and (3) with intent to deprive. [read post]
1 Sep 2013, 4:45 pm
Here are some of the lessons that “Vodka Sam” will learn. 1. [read post]
31 Aug 2013, 10:46 am
In addition, “anticipation of litigation” rule does not apply where a report is sought to be admitted against the party who prepared it. [read post]
30 Aug 2013, 3:23 am
The PTO does not require that a specimen of use be an archival example of the exact matter that was in use as of the application filing date. [read post]
29 Aug 2013, 9:46 am
The Circuit does not appear to have weighed in on the topic. [read post]
22 Aug 2013, 10:41 am
” Id. at **37-38. [read post]
22 Aug 2013, 9:03 am
At first glance, the evidence does not look good for the two of them. [read post]
21 Aug 2013, 9:05 am
” In footnote 51, the district court offered comments regarding proposed amendments to Rule 37(e)—currently published for public comment (with other proposed amendments), here. [read post]
21 Aug 2013, 4:30 am
If a judge simply does not feel comfortable playing the role of gatekeeper, junk science creeps in. [read post]
21 Aug 2013, 4:00 am
Christopher Berzins notes in an article for the Advocates Quarterly (2010) 37 Adv. [read post]
19 Aug 2013, 8:57 am
Ultimately, upon review of the final ID, the Commission determined that a violation of section 337 had been shown based on infringement of claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-16, 35-37, 39, and 41-46 of the ’809 patent. [read post]
18 Aug 2013, 1:29 pm
Although defendant does not dispute that grand larceny in the fourth degree is a lesser included offense of grand larceny in the third degree (see, CPL 1.20[37], she claims that no reasonable view of the evidence presented at trial supports a finding that she committed the lesser offense but not the greater. [read post]
17 Aug 2013, 9:21 pm
Procedural History"1. [read post]
16 Aug 2013, 4:29 am
Take Adam & Eve for example: what does it tell you about a law firm? [read post]
