Search for: "In re A. V."
Results 3681 - 3700
of 62,899
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Apr 2023, 2:44 pm
Cir. 2020) (quoting In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1357 (Fed. [read post]
11 Apr 2023, 11:44 am
Publ’ns, Inc., 135 USPQ 374, 375 (TTAB 1962). [2] Ex parte Meredith Publ’g Co., 109 USPQ 426, 426 (Comm’r Pats. 1956). [3] Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 686 F.3d 1376 (Fed. [read post]
11 Apr 2023, 11:44 am
Publ’ns, Inc., 135 USPQ 374, 375 (TTAB 1962). [2] Ex parte Meredith Publ’g Co., 109 USPQ 426, 426 (Comm’r Pats. 1956). [3] Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 686 F.3d 1376 (Fed. [read post]
11 Apr 2023, 9:27 am
Res. 66) that urges Congress to focus on AI and would resolve that the House of Representatives supports focusing on AI to ensure development of AI is done in a way that “is safe, ethical, and respects the rights and privacy of all Americans” and widely distributes AI benefits while minimizing risks. [read post]
11 Apr 2023, 8:44 am
Buchanan One of the safest bets in recent years was that Republicans would conveniently drop the pretense that they believe in states' rights as soon as their manufactured Supreme Court super-majority handed them their long-sought repeal of Roe v. [read post]
11 Apr 2023, 7:36 am
Re-introduce protection against harassment by third parties Under the Equality Act 2010, there were protections against harassment by third parties. [read post]
11 Apr 2023, 6:09 am
Vivo and--potentially--Vivo v. [read post]
11 Apr 2023, 1:58 am
First, the document: De Martini et al. v. [read post]
10 Apr 2023, 9:00 pm
If we were to view it this way, the law would survive, according to cases such as Ward v. [read post]
10 Apr 2023, 6:02 pm
Nagel v. [read post]
10 Apr 2023, 2:13 pm
In the case of Halum et. al. v. [read post]
10 Apr 2023, 8:56 am
According to the rulemaking petition, the soon-to-be-argued Supreme Court case Slack Technologies, LLC v. [read post]
10 Apr 2023, 8:19 am
Since 2014, states have had to contend with the holding of California v. [read post]
10 Apr 2023, 7:38 am
If people want to rob you, they're not willing to comply with a law against robbery, so they're probably not willing to comply with a law against gun possession in public, either. [read post]
10 Apr 2023, 6:30 am
And if you don’t know the topic well, you’re grateful to Mark for explaining it to you. [read post]
10 Apr 2023, 5:40 am
Case Study Caveglia v. [read post]
10 Apr 2023, 4:02 am
TTABlogger comment: The cited mark looks like V-2 MOTOR to me. [read post]
10 Apr 2023, 4:00 am
Notably, the key decisions pre-date Roe v. [read post]
9 Apr 2023, 9:30 pm
But if our luncheon guests put all these issues aside, as you're supposed to do in my heaven, I bet Frankfurter and Freund are absolutely wowed by Mark's spectacular book. [read post]
9 Apr 2023, 8:25 pm
In United States v. [read post]
