Search for: "Kahn v. State" Results 481 - 500 of 505
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Jan 2008, 6:30 am
KAHN CLERK [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 08-10100 ________________________ D. [read post]
28 Dec 2007, 6:31 pm
  It's kind of a funny story because it's true:Robert Loblaw points to a recent 4th Circuit case, U.S. v. [read post]
14 Nov 2007, 9:59 pm
KAHN CLERK [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 07-15329 D.C. [read post]
29 Oct 2007, 6:05 am
Jane Sarasohn-Kahn at Health Populi looks at some early statistics of how Iowans feel about the state of our health care system. [read post]
24 Oct 2007, 7:11 am
KAHN CLERK [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 07-14956 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D. [read post]
10 Oct 2007, 10:56 am
On October 10, 2007, the United States Patent and Trademark Office publishedExamination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. [read post]
30 May 2007, 7:06 pm
The absence of motivation can be an important factor in ruling that a particular combination invention is not obvious.Wegner states that obviousness practice at the CAFC is "markedly changed" from the time of the KSR cert petition in 2005, although IPBiz suspects that the CAFC, in Kahn, thought it was merely articulating PAST practice, NOT "markedly changing" past practice. [read post]
8 May 2007, 10:37 pm
From my post on scotusblog:The opinion [by the CAFC in KSR] cited Ruiz v. [read post]
7 Feb 2007, 12:26 am
Schwartz, a law professor at Touro College, writes that the decision in Paul v. [read post]
30 Nov 2006, 10:11 am
Justice Ginsburg kicked off the Court's questioning, eventually asking whether petitioner's arguments would hold up under the Federal Circuit's most recent decisions on obviousness - In re Kahn, Alza Corp. v. [read post]