Search for: "Doe Defendants 1 to 20" Results 6021 - 6040 of 8,962
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Aug 2012, 10:43 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Broke patent conditions into high and low thresholds—from 10% to 20%, etc. [read post]
9 Aug 2012, 7:27 am by Antonin I. Pribetic
… [36]           The defendants argue that there is no jurisdiction simpliciter, as the claim does not fall under any of the provisions of R. 17.02. [read post]
9 Aug 2012, 2:44 am by Victoria VanBuren
USADA’s Motion to Dismiss Defendants assert that arbitration is the proper forum and the court therefore does not have jurisdiction over Armstrong’s claims. [read post]
8 Aug 2012, 3:42 am by Victoria VanBuren
  In particular, he identifies (1) the lack of a charging document that fairly informs Mr. [read post]
6 Aug 2012, 7:02 pm by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer
  According to the Field Assistance Bulletin, the regulation does not require that a plan have a particular number of “designated investment alternative” (DIA), and the Bulletin does not prohibit the use of a platform or a brokerage window, self-directed brokerage account, or similar plan arrangement in an individual account plan. [read post]
3 Aug 2012, 7:30 pm
Adobe 4/20/2012, (Patent Infringement against multiple defendants, including Zynga); Gametek v. [read post]
3 Aug 2012, 5:00 pm
Ohio, 392 US 1, 20 L.Ed. 2d 889 (1968), a police officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time if the officer reasonably infers that the person committed, is committing or is about to commit, an offense, including traffic offenses. [read post]
2 Aug 2012, 2:31 am by tekEditor
The first observation is that, in most instances, the US show a much larger variation than Germany does, so that talking about the "average" is more dangerous when referring to the US than when referring to Germany. [read post]
2 Aug 2012, 1:21 am by Kevin LaCroix
  Several months after the individuals’ conviction, the Department of Health and Human Services determined that the individuals should be excluded from participating in Federal health care programs for 20 years. [read post]
31 Jul 2012, 7:25 am by aschwartz
  Under the scope-of-the-patent test, reverse payment settlements do not violate the antitrust laws if (1) the exclusion does not exceed the patent’s scope, (2) the patent holder’s claim of infringement was not objectively baseless, and (3) the patent was not procured by fraud on the patent and trademark office. [read post]
30 Jul 2012, 3:40 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Paragraph 3(i) of the contract confirms the foregoing and provides for plaintiff to pay an additional $20,000 on July 20, 2008, which she did, for a total contract deposit of $1 05,000. [read post]
29 Jul 2012, 7:38 am by Joel R. Brandes
Notably, Ekekere found and retained lawyers to defend her in this case within a few days. [read post]