Search for: "DOES 1-101"
Results 481 - 500
of 3,320
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Apr 2017, 6:24 am
Artistic judgment and marketabilityThere was an argument that the test for identifying an artistic work should include two objective components:(1) do the design elements reflect the designer's artistic judgment? [read post]
27 Jan 2010, 5:49 am
Generally a qualified assignment company is a special purpose company, which does little more than hold an annuity or United States Treasury obligations as a "qualified funding asset" to back up the obligations it assumes from Defendants, Insurers or qualified settlement fund trustee. [read post]
26 Feb 2008, 12:00 am
§ 101? [read post]
1 Mar 2021, 7:00 am
The 101 definition of pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works states that,A Mazer v. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 4:51 am
One of my favorite programs on 101 is the Dr. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 4:51 am
One of my favorite programs on 101 is the Dr. [read post]
7 Apr 2017, 5:50 am
., 1:17-cv-02407. [read post]
26 Jan 2010, 9:50 pm
§ 101. [read post]
5 Apr 2020, 6:15 pm
Does a similar fate await Santa Rita, after its first two positive cases? [read post]
4 Oct 2023, 8:52 am
In an October 2022 Court of Appeals case , the Washington Alliance of Technology Workers (Washtech) similary argued that the F-1 STEM Optional Practical Training (OPT) rule should be struck down on the ground that INA § 101(a)(15)(F)(i) authorizes DHS to allow F-1 students to remain in the U.S. only until they have completed their course of study and does not specifically authorize post-graduation practical training. [read post]
20 Aug 2012, 6:19 pm
§ 101, says a Delaware District Court. [read post]
15 Jan 2009, 9:43 am
Therefore, (1) automatic denial of statutory damages under HRS §101-27 in Condemnation 1 is vacated and the case remanded for a determination of damages, (2) the court's conclusion that Condemnation 2 was not abated by Condemnation 2 is vacated and the case remanded for a determination of whether the public purpose asserted in Condemnation 2 was pretextual.Slip op. at 5. [read post]
3 Feb 2020, 1:37 pm
Cir. 2015) (agreeing that the claimed invention “revolutionized prenatal care,” but still invalidating patent claims because “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the § 101 inquiry”). [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 10:36 am
So, what does that mean? [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 2:38 pm
If a claimed method does not meet the machine-or-transformation test, the examiner should reject the claim under section 101 unless there is a clear indication that the method is not directed to an abstract idea. [read post]
14 Nov 2014, 8:57 am
Claim 1 is pasted below. [read post]
13 Feb 2017, 4:27 pm
It does not expressly give it the power to regulate immigration, which is the process of legally entering the country. [read post]
6 Jul 2015, 10:56 am
§101.But there is an implicit exception. [read post]
14 Feb 2012, 11:30 am
"Appellant's argument does not identify a statutory transformation, and we will sustain the rejection of representative independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-17. [read post]
