Search for: "US v. Levelle Grant"
Results 4641 - 4660
of 9,107
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Aug 2021, 1:18 pm
California Chamber of Commerce v. [read post]
1 Jan 2010, 5:44 pm
In Demelus v. [read post]
23 Dec 2014, 2:02 pm
In Neloms v. [read post]
26 Oct 2010, 12:33 pm
See Kam Lee Yuen Trading Co. v. [read post]
28 Jun 2018, 8:52 am
Pelucchi, V. [read post]
11 May 2022, 4:36 am
The term “inventor” is not defined in the Act, although Reg 3.2C(2)(aa) requires the name of the inventor of the invention to which the application relates to be provided and the term is used in section 15 of the Act to describe who may be granted a patent. [read post]
23 Sep 2020, 10:04 am
Bailey v. [read post]
23 Mar 2012, 1:29 pm
We found one other useful decision, Davenport v. [read post]
16 Aug 2017, 12:06 pm
Printz v. [read post]
19 Jun 2009, 6:58 am
Publication at grant is the first level of publication. [read post]
19 Sep 2008, 12:05 pm
"FOIL is to be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly interpreted so that the public is granted maximum access to the records of government" (Matter of Capital Newspapers v Whalen, 69 NY2d 246, 252; see Buffalo News, Inc. v Buffalo Enterprise Dev. [read post]
2 Dec 2008, 8:22 am
On November 27, 2008 the European Court of Justice ("ECJ") issued its judgment in Ministry of Finance v. [read post]
29 Jul 2024, 7:24 am
The parties used competing ICE names for floor cleaning equipment. [read post]
24 Jun 2020, 8:34 am
In Tennessee v. [read post]
2 Oct 2014, 8:25 am
Using the Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart v Dukes as its guide, the court also held the plaintiffs lacked commonality. [read post]
18 May 2018, 3:56 am
" eBay v. [read post]
2 Nov 2022, 11:43 am
Mark this one down as a likely grant. [read post]
18 Sep 2012, 1:02 am
Forest Labs relied on the venerable Second Circuit decision in Zeig v. [read post]
7 Jul 2015, 11:52 am
Michael Knapp informed us that the Second Circuit has granted an en banc rehearing of United States v. [read post]
2 Jul 2013, 11:56 am
In Interstate Specialty Marketing, Inc. v. [read post]
