Search for: "MATTER OF B T B" Results 6441 - 6460 of 19,798
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Oct 2014, 4:37 pm by Ron Coleman
I saw this coming, now didn’t I? [read post]
2 Feb 2011, 10:57 am by Kevin LaCroix
So your flight was cancelled and you weren’t able to make it to New York for the PLUS D&O Symposium? [read post]
19 Mar 2021, 8:35 am by Eugene Volokh
" "A informs his daughter B that there is a rumor that C, B's fiance, is an embezzler. [read post]
22 Jul 2020, 10:27 pm by Scott McKeown
Second, the majority held that “[t]he PTAB correctly concluded that it is not limited by § 311(b) in its review of proposed substitute claims in an IPR, and that it may consider § 101 eligibility. [read post]
14 Jun 2019, 8:27 am by Rebecca Tushnet
The Patent/© clause of the Constitution isn’t helpful in figuring out what to do b/c there’s not enough from the Founders to interpret. [read post]
19 Jan 2021, 1:17 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
The fact that DoorDash wasn’t a direct competitor didn’t matter after Lexmark. [read post]
29 Jun 2020, 4:34 pm by Eugene Volokh
To begin with, recall that, as a general matter, you can lawfully use deadly force to prevent death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, or rape, if you reasonably fear such harm. [read post]
29 Mar 2016, 6:53 am by John Jascob
Dudenhoeffer affords fiduciaries for employee stock ownership plans per se immunity from fiduciary liability whenever the underlying company stock investment in the ESOP trades in an "efficient market," no matter how speculative the sock has become or how close the company is to filing bankruptcy. [read post]
10 Sep 2014, 2:06 pm
 Could an argument of damage to the specific subject matter of Ferrari’s trade mark by the removal of the Ferrari badges be made in this-- very different-- context? [read post]
26 Aug 2020, 12:44 pm by Daniel Shaviro
 What isn’t or wouldn’t be part of the classification and assignment regime? [read post]
3 Dec 2009, 3:05 pm by Armand Grinstajn
The petition for review was filed by the patentee after the Board in decision T 15/07 had revoked the opposed patent. [read post]
15 Sep 2020, 2:28 pm by Patricia Hughes
In other words, the oath requirement does not completely deny the appellants’ right to express their views on the matter. [read post]