Search for: "Doe"
Results 5821 - 5840
of 487,360
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Jan 2017, 7:08 am
I believe that there likewise can be no dispute that estoppel does not apply to invalidity grounds that were raised by a petitioner in an IPR, but rejected by the Board as instituted grounds (i.e., 'noninstituted grounds'). [read post]
10 Nov 2015, 7:49 am
It does, according to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. [read post]
5 Jan 2018, 7:45 am
Cir. 2016)] only requires excluding from the scope of Section 315(e)(2) those invalidity grounds for which the PTAB did not institute review, but not invalidity grounds that the petitioner failed to raise in its petition because the narrower estoppel suggested by Shaw would encourage petitioners to hold back 'a second-string invalidity case in reserve in case the IPR does not go the defendant’s way.'. . . . [read post]
31 Jul 2014, 2:16 pm
It does not give them the freedom to discriminate againstany particular religion (a “We will not hire Muslims” policy, for example, remains off limits), but it does allow them to prefer coreligionists, i.e., “individuals of a particular religion. [read post]
30 Sep 2010, 12:00 pm
. --------------------- What Does Your Online Bio Say? [read post]
6 Oct 2008, 7:24 pm
In People v Tolliver (2008 NY Slip Op 07341 [4th Dept 10/3/08]), the Court reaffirmed that even a valid waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass defendant's challenge to the severity of the sentence where the defendant waived his right to appeal before Supreme Court advised him of the maximum sentence that could be imposed (see People v Mingo, 38 AD3d 1270, 1271; see generally People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827). [read post]
2 Apr 2014, 4:37 am
How Does Ignition Interlock Work? [read post]
2 Jul 2008, 7:19 am
So does this mean I've wasted the last three years in school? [read post]
7 Jan 2010, 11:37 am
So no, calling an attorney does not mean escalating a dispute. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 1:11 pm
I noticed a few stories related to juvenile justice and the Texas Youth Commission that may interest Grits readers: From the Beaumont Enterprise:What does it take to reform a reformatory? [read post]
26 Jun 2023, 10:43 am
Factual Background In 1982, a child was born to an unwed couple, John Bennett and Jane Doe. [read post]
31 Aug 2015, 7:40 am
[Defendant], however, does not offer the evidence in dispute to establish liability, validity or amount of a claim. [read post]
30 Nov 2017, 7:52 am
Cir. 2017)] does not address whether a physical place of a corporate affiliate or subsidiary or alter ego or agent can, for venue purposes, be attributed to the named defendant in a case. . . . [read post]
19 Oct 2017, 7:36 am
[B]ased principally on the presence of the blocking patents that suppressed any competition in cyclosporin/glyceride emulsion formulations, the Court concludes that the objective consideration evidence does not significantly support a finding of non-obviousness. [read post]
4 Aug 2023, 4:10 am
We disagree with Appellants assertion and hold that this requirement does not violate their First Amendment rights. [read post]
11 Dec 2017, 7:39 am
The Court need not consider these contentions, because it concludes that the plain language of the statute does not include a nexus requirement. [read post]
16 Apr 2015, 7:02 am
Merely using routine organization of data to serve a handful of different purposes does not, however, rise to that level. [read post]
12 Feb 2018, 7:18 am
. 'it [does not] appear that there was any written agreement at [the time of the communications] to have a legally 'common interest' in whatever was provided by Plaintiff.' Furthermore, the Special Master explained that the 'documents were provided before any agreement was reached between Plaintiff and [the litigation funder], and before any litigation was filed.' Thus, Plaintiff has not shown that Plaintiff and [the litigation funder] possessed identical legal… [read post]
1 Mar 2016, 7:34 am
By itself, the receipt of such marketing materials does not establish the existence of an ongoing attorney-client relationship, but merely indicates that [counsel] was interested in keeping its name before [defendant] in the event that [it] needed representation on another matter. [read post]
19 Jan 2015, 5:02 am
So what does that mean for you? [read post]
