Search for: "*dates v. Cir"
Results 21 - 40
of 5,311
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Aug 2012, 3:06 pm
KSR Int’l v. [read post]
19 Jan 2008, 8:01 am
LEXIS 836 (2d Cir. [read post]
17 Feb 2008, 10:44 am
Branigan v. [read post]
28 Jul 2015, 11:40 pm
Burwell (10th Cir., July 14, 2015) (Requiring religious NPOs to opt out of contraceptive coverage for employees does not substantially burden religious exercise under RFRA nor infringe 1st amendment rights) (see also Reaching Souls International and Southern Nazarene University (10th Cir., same date), below)Marcroft v. [read post]
17 May 2009, 9:21 pm
Peyton v Fred's Stores of Arkansas, Inc, ___F.3d___(8th Cir. [read post]
7 Jul 2020, 8:22 pm
§ 262(l)(8)(A): (8) Notice of commercial marketing and preliminary injunction (A) Notice of commercial marketing The subsection (k) applicant shall provide notice to the reference product sponsor not later than 180 days before the date of the first... [read post]
10 Jul 2013, 9:15 pm
By Alison Baldwin -- Just before the July 4th holiday, the Federal Circuit issued its ruling in Fresenius USA, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Jan 2018, 8:15 am
Cir. [read post]
5 Apr 2011, 4:17 pm
Bell, 624 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2010). [read post]
4 May 2016, 11:57 am
Collins asks the INS to change his birth date of 1952 to his "true" birth date of 1948. [read post]
19 Mar 2015, 2:39 pm
Cir. 2008); PowerOasis, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Sep 2015, 9:59 pm
Be Wary of Claim Amendments During Reexamination By Joseph Herndon -- Traditional patent law holds that a patentee of a patent that survives reexamination is only entitled to infringement damages for the time period between the date of issuance of the original claims and the date of issuance of the reexamined claims if the original and the reexamined claims are "substantially identical. [read post]
31 Jul 2023, 1:51 pm
Cir. 2015) (citing Titanium Metals Corp. v. [read post]
2 Jun 2010, 11:35 am
Palakovich, No. 07-2163 (3d Cir. [read post]
14 Sep 2023, 11:56 am
” This case turns on the interpretation of the stop-time rule because Petitioner committed the heroin offense within the seven-year period but was convicted after the period ended.We conclude that the agency did not err in deciding that the stop-time rule is calculated from the date Petitioner committed a criminal offense that rendered him removable, rather than the date he was convicted. [read post]
21 May 2013, 4:18 pm
In Motiva v. [read post]
25 Mar 2010, 3:56 pm
Cir. 2007) and Immunocept v. [read post]
22 Jan 2024, 2:48 am
Cir. 1957); Bong Youn Choy v. [read post]
27 Oct 2013, 5:33 pm
v. [read post]
22 Feb 2008, 2:14 pm
Cir. 2007) (citing Eaton v. [read post]
