Search for: "Doe II v. Doe I"
Results 481 - 500
of 12,296
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jun 2015, 3:50 am
This describes, among other things, a Phase III trial of trastuzumab in combinations with paclitaxel and other agents, but does not disclose any results from that trial, but it does disclose the results from the Phase I and II studies.The judge considered that Baselga 97 did not enable the clinical benefit claimed in the Patent to be directly and unambiguously derived, and therefore that the claim was novel.Turning to inventive step, Arnold J set… [read post]
11 Mar 2008, 1:37 pm
First, Lloyd's notes that several types of insurance may be impacted by potential EHS risks related to nanotechnology including: (i) professional indemnity, (ii) medical malpractice, (iii) director's and officer's liability, (iv) general liability, (v) employer's liability, and (vi) product liability. [read post]
26 Apr 2013, 11:49 pm
M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1249 (Fed. [read post]
13 Sep 2022, 2:11 pm
We conclude that it does. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 6:43 am
JAI contended that claim 1 is novel over Konig since (i) Konig does not disclose an antibody to Aβ of the human IgG1 isotype and (ii) Konig does not disclose use of (a pharmaceutical composition comprising) the antibody in preventing or treating a disease characterised by amyloid deposit. [read post]
15 Dec 2007, 2:28 am
A pp. 381, 727 N .W.2d 717 (2007) (McCulloch I) rehearing granted, opinion vacated and replaced with State v. [read post]
17 Dec 2018, 5:17 am
Scott v. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 6:40 am
” II. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 12:19 pm
It does not and should not matter where an amendment is made. [read post]
25 Feb 2008, 6:00 am
Daniels v. [read post]
27 Oct 2011, 3:52 am
II. [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 9:45 am
From the case Commil v. [read post]
15 Aug 2014, 2:13 am
But heads up, because that does not apply to §§1.2105(a)(2)(xii) and (c)(6); 1.2204(a), (c), (d)(3), and (d)(5); 1.2205(c) and (d); 1.2209; 2.1033(c)(19)(iii); 15.713(b)(2)(iv); 15.713(h)(10); 27.14(k) and (t)(6); 27.17(c); 27.19(b) and (c); 73.3700(b)(1)(i) through (v), (b)(2)(i) and (ii), (b)(3), (b)(4)(i) and (ii), and (b)(5); 73.3700(c); 73.3700(d); 73.3700(e)(2) through (6); 73.3700(f); 73.3700(g); 73.3700(h)(4) and (6);… [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 2:20 pm
Part II comes tomorrow. [read post]
11 Mar 2012, 9:01 pm
Lawyers for Joseph Lewis, II this past Friday filed a reply memorandum in support of their earlier motion to dismiss. [read post]
27 Dec 2013, 3:00 am
Hood v. [read post]
13 May 2014, 6:55 am
If Title 10 v. [read post]
9 Jun 2011, 10:20 am
§924(e)(2)(B)(ii), from other crimes. [read post]
17 Nov 2008, 2:00 pm
Spriggs II and his coauthors entitled Network Analysis and Law: Measuring the Legal Importance of Precedent at the U.S. [read post]
28 Dec 2016, 8:25 am
I offered some thoughts on Fisher II here. [read post]
