Search for: "MATTER OF T B" Results 41 - 60 of 19,977
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Jul 2018, 1:44 pm by Thomas Surmanski
These invisible costs don’t need to remain so, however. [read post]
23 Jul 2018, 1:44 pm by Thomas Surmanski
These invisible costs don’t need to remain so, however. [read post]
20 Dec 2022, 4:53 am
There isn't one Judge in the REGJB or in Florida for that matter that would let a defense attorney say that in opening or closing arguments. [read post]
29 Sep 2014, 6:52 am by Rebecca Tushnet
  Dastarteaches that “[t]he words of the Lanham Act should not be stretched to cover matters that are typically of no consequence to consumers. [read post]
27 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
As a consequence of the listing of the non-ionic polymers (b) the subject-matter of auxiliary request 2 is novel over the disclosure of document D2 because this document does not disclose these particular polymers (b) in combination with the copolymer (a) and cetyltrimethylammonium chloride (c). [read post]
6 May 2018, 8:38 am by Wally Zimolong
  However, I do follow the NLRB dockets and the matter Zubba, LLC d/b/a Ultimate Fighting Championship caught my attention. [read post]
6 May 2018, 8:38 am by Wally Zimolong
  However, I do follow the NLRB dockets and the matter Zubba, LLC d/b/a Ultimate Fighting Championship caught my attention. [read post]
28 Dec 2009, 8:23 pm by Karen G. Hazzah
It turns out there was another claim construction issue lurking in this case, one which didn’t get much discussion: when the claim recites “A or B,” is B optional? [read post]
17 Jan 2024, 1:01 pm by Tobin Admin
Attorney M tried to fire Attorney B on August 8th, but he didn’t have his clients’ permission. [read post]
30 Jun 2008, 1:23 pm
Right now, I don't share his confidence. [read post]
4 Nov 2009, 4:03 pm
[…] Claim 1, in addition to claim 1 as granted, contains a disclaimer in its section b) wherein it is "provided that the cells are not human embryonic stem cells". [read post]
15 Sep 2020, 1:00 am by Roel van Woudenberg
In the grounds of appeal of 28 March 2019, the applicant referred to T 1063/18 which decided that Rule 28(2) is in conflict with Art.53(b) as interpreted by the Enlarged Board in G 2/12 and G 2/13 and that the refusal in that case based on Rule 28(2) should be set aside. [read post]