Search for: "Does 1 - 35" Results 401 - 420 of 9,740
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 May 2013, 4:00 am
* Although not addressed in the decision, an appointing authority may not excess or lay a tenured employee as a subterfuge for disciplinary action [Young v Board of Education, 35 NY2d 31]. [read post]
17 Jul 2011, 11:10 am
" Hal's constructive suggestion - A change parallel to the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act amendments to 35 USC §§ 119(e)(1), 120 should be made to legislatively overrule the best mode requirement for foreign priority. [read post]
6 Feb 2012, 6:00 am by Tom Domer
You may be surprised to learn that age does not correlate with frequency of injury. [read post]
9 May 2011, 10:11 am by @ErikJHeels
* American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA) of 1999 codified 102(e)(1). 35 U.S.C § 102(g)(2) Inventive Activity (Made and Continuously Used) Another (who did not Abandon, Suppress, or Conceal it) U.S. [read post]
25 Oct 2016, 2:22 pm by Dennis Crouch
Thus, the pending en banc questions focus on this stance: 1) In an IPR, when the patent owner moves to amend claims under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
2 Oct 2012, 3:30 pm by Christopher J. Berry
If no action is taken by Congress, the exemption will revert to $1 million and the estate tax rate will be 55 percent in 2013. [read post]
2 Feb 2021, 2:04 am by Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff
(i) For persons under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a license to the Government resulting from a rights determination under Executive Order 10096 does not constitute a license so as to prohibit claiming small entity status. [read post]
22 Aug 2022, 8:10 am by Eran Kahana
To be clear, this does not mean that all the core principles are always relevant to every AI application; they are not. [read post]
23 Dec 2016, 7:06 am by Docket Navigator
ValidFill, LLC et al, 1-15-cv-04348 (GAND December 21, 2016, Order) (Duffey, USDJ) [read post]
4 Oct 2022, 11:47 am by Holman
In a nutshell, the reason for this was that under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(1) Edmondson could not be used as 102(e)/103 prior art because Edmondson and the challenged patent were both owned by Merck, and Merck was able to antedate Edmondson as a 102(a)/103 reference with respect to Claim 1 and some of the other claims at issue. [read post]
28 May 2012, 10:25 am by Charles Bieneman
  Before the re-examination, independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2 had been held invalid based on the on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C. [read post]
16 Mar 2018, 9:00 pm by clc-admin
The expected dates of proclamation are as follows: July 1, 2018 for the amendments to modernize the Act and the holdback rules; and October 1, 2019 for the amendments related to prompt payment, adjudication and liens against municipalities. [read post]
17 Jan 2010, 6:28 pm by Law Lady
Contracts -- Contingency fee agreement with attorney who represented plaintiffs in personal injury action -- Where agreement provided that attorney would be paid “33 1/3% of any recovery . . . through the time of the filing of an answer,” and no answer was filed, attorney was entitled to 33 1/3 percent of amount recovered in settlement with personal injury defendant -- Attorney breached terms of agreement by retaining 40 percent of settlement recoveryReported at… [read post]