Search for: "In Re Schreiber" Results 21 - 40 of 100
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Oct 2015, 4:32 pm
Schreiber should be subpoenaed to give evidence on behalf of the defendants as against his former clients and that he should produce his complete file including many memoranda and other material all of which were privileged as against the plaintiffs and whether the plaintiffs' counsel objected or not that he should be permitted to so testify and so produce without the consent of the plaintiffs being requested and obtained. [read post]
17 Aug 2015, 9:16 am by Venkat Balasubramani
High Schooler’s Facebook Post Can Constitute the Crime of Menacing – In re P.T. [read post]
24 Jul 2015, 6:29 am by Jim Sedor
Sam Brownback contacted Mark Schreiber, a government affairs vice president at Westar Energy, seeking help retiring debt left over from the governor’s re-election campaign last year. [read post]
25 Nov 2013, 8:53 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. [read post]
18 Nov 2013, 1:37 pm by Venkat Balasubramani
Schreiber Court Upholds Student Suspension For YouTube Video of Teacher Teenager Busted for Creating Fake “News” Story [read post]
16 Oct 2013, 6:02 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. [read post]
3 Oct 2013, 9:53 pm by Ruby Powers
  The number of applications received may include re-filings by applicants whose cases were initially rejected at the Lockbox. [read post]
25 Jul 2013, 10:20 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. [read post]
17 Jun 2013, 10:27 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477(Fed. [read post]
7 Jun 2013, 6:53 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed.Cir. 1997) (citations omitted).As to using the text "at least the same reasons":With respect to independent claim 9, Appellants argue claim 9 isallowable “for at least the same reasons provided above in support of thepatentability of claim 1” (App. [read post]
7 Jun 2013, 6:46 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
The Board affirmed the examiner in Ex parte STAVENJORDAs to apparatus claims:Claims directed to an apparatus must bedistinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. [read post]