Search for: "Does 1-35"
Results 3481 - 3500
of 9,549
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Nov 2011, 1:10 am
§ 321(a) or inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
23 Nov 2010, 7:50 am
There's an original thread on the VLC mailing list that discussed this (12:35), and then Brett's response on that list. (13:25) GPLv2 requires in § 6 that you cannot impose terms that restrict the downstream more than GPL otherwise does [read post]
5 Aug 2020, 1:03 pm
’s rank does not affect states’ ranks, but the figure in parentheses indicates where it would rank if included. [read post]
25 Nov 2017, 2:00 am
Days later, in a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in favor of the captives of the Amistad. [read post]
17 Nov 2011, 2:12 pm
State, 35 So.3d 162 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Harris v. [read post]
18 Oct 2011, 10:43 am
Sanofi further agrees that it will not seek increased damages under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
18 Oct 2008, 6:01 pm
A couple of final notes: The DEIS does not mention coordination with any local agency outside the City of Philadelphia. [read post]
28 Jul 2022, 10:21 am
” RE47,049, Claim 1. [read post]
30 Mar 2011, 11:00 am
" 35 U.S.C. [read post]
21 Jun 2015, 8:15 pm
Salmonella has been confirmed in a total of 35 patients. [read post]
15 Jul 2020, 2:22 am
The plaintiffs appealed, seeking reversal on two grounds: Lack of res iudicata and violation of Article 34 (1) Brussels I Regulation. [read post]
4 Dec 2009, 4:16 pm
The PTO examiner determined that the invention did not constitute patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
2 Dec 2008, 5:36 pm
Also, any investment vehicle that’s already tax-free or tax-deferred absolutely, positively, does not belong in a tax-deferred account. [read post]
22 Dec 2010, 2:58 am
” 35 U.S.C. [read post]
21 Feb 2014, 5:23 pm
Rule 35(f). [read post]
15 Nov 2011, 1:50 am
§ 321(a) or inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
4 May 2017, 8:26 am
In defense, Teva argued the asserted claims were invalid under the on-sale bar provision of 35 U.S.C. [read post]
11 Nov 2021, 10:08 am
The fact that the inventors are the same or that there is common ownership does not prevent the earlier application from being counted as prior art.(1, 2) When considering how to best protect add-on enhancements to an existing patent application, be mindful that the benefit of preserving the original priority date for claims supported in the original disclosure may not be worth the risk of having the parent application count against you for prior art. [read post]
4 May 2017, 8:26 am
In defense, Teva argued the asserted claims were invalid under the on-sale bar provision of 35 U.S.C. [read post]
6 Jul 2017, 7:43 am
Scheiner, Attorneys for the Injured, at 1-800-646-1210. [read post]
