Search for: "In Re Petition of Public Service"
Results 21 - 40
of 2,416
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Jan 2010, 10:56 am
Williams (09-466), below, was re-scheduled for review at the January 22 conference. [read post]
25 Feb 2011, 1:26 pm
If any other paid petitions are re-distributed for this conference, we will add them below as soon as their re-distribution is noted on the docket. [read post]
7 Aug 2007, 2:20 am
*tsk*Oh well.In any case, the petition got into the public record. [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 1:10 pm
If any other paid petitions are re-distributed for this conference, we will add them below as soon as their re-distribution is noted on the docket. [read post]
10 May 2011, 4:43 pm
The following petitions have been re-listed for the conference of May 12. [read post]
3 May 2023, 11:54 am
The final rule noted that the rule change furthered in the petition was supported by “nearly 100 public companies[.] [read post]
24 Mar 2022, 5:55 pm
” In re Marriage of Johnson, 232 Ill. [read post]
18 Feb 2011, 1:38 am
HolderDocket: 10-545Issue(s): (1) Does the Progress Clause of the United States Constitution, Article I, § 8, cl. 8, prohibit Congress from taking works out of the public domain? [read post]
18 Jun 2009, 5:19 pm
Smith and find that a statement concerning possible corruption by a public official-made in a petition for redress of grievances to the government-is privileged under the Petition Clause of the First Amendment and whether the First Amendment protects from liability those who relay such a defamatory statement made by others. [read post]
11 Sep 2018, 3:07 am
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in In re Brunetti, 125 USPQ2d 1072 (Fed. [read post]
19 Mar 2020, 2:16 pm
Once these services have resumed for FY 2021 H-1B cap-subject petitions, we will provide updates on our blog. [read post]
11 Feb 2019, 4:21 am
" In re Paramount Pictures Corp., 213 USPQ at 1112 (in this case, wording on a T-shirt “inherently tells the purchasing public the source of the T-shirt, not the source of the manufacturer but the secondary source. [read post]
1 Dec 2010, 5:54 pm
If any other paid petitions are re-distributed for this conference, we will add them below as soon as their re-distribution is noted on the docket. [read post]
25 Sep 2015, 7:05 am
Bar re Rules Reg. the Fla. [read post]
15 Feb 2010, 2:20 pm
United States Docket: 09-293 Issue: Whether a litigant moving to re-open a suppression hearing to introduce additional evidence must justify his failure to introduce that evidence at the initial hearing. [read post]
16 Apr 2010, 8:28 am
To our knowledge, the Court has re-listed just the following case from previous editions of Petitions to Watch for the conference of April 16: Ransom v. [read post]
6 Jun 2011, 3:10 am
Interference Model to Control Petition Explosion & Manage Filings Last Wednesday, the USPTO conducted a public meeting to receive comments on their proposals to streamline patent reexamination. [read post]
15 Jul 2009, 5:58 pm
Because we have recently re-evaluated the status of this species as part of our 2008 Annual Notice of Review, we will not address it further as part of this petition. [read post]
1 Apr 2011, 2:07 pm
To address this issue, we’ve just announced that we’re we're automating the filing and decision process for eight (8) patent petition types. [read post]
7 Oct 2011, 3:18 pm
Petition for certiorari Brief in opposition Petitioners’ reply _____________________________________________ The following petitions have been re-listed from the Conference of September 26, 2011: Utah Highway Patrol Ass’n v. [read post]
