Search for: "LARGE v. LARGE"
Results 6721 - 6740
of 40,635
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 May 2021, 3:45 am
" The Examining Attorney maintained that the term DANK "means or refers to ‘…sticky, juicy, very pungent and of a high level’ and ‘[v]ery hoppy, cloudy IPAs with high alcohol content and flavors with a very funky taste. [read post]
11 May 2021, 2:55 am
For long saving horizons, the distortion is very large. [read post]
10 May 2021, 5:36 pm
It is not a perfect solution, but there it is.Communications Workers of America Local 4123 v. [read post]
10 May 2021, 4:54 pm
The Board declared that the main distinction should not be whether the speaker is a political figure, but whether the person is influential, one who has large audience. [read post]
10 May 2021, 4:23 pm
In Mitchell v. [read post]
10 May 2021, 9:36 am
See Robinson v. [read post]
10 May 2021, 8:55 am
In Capitol Records v. [read post]
10 May 2021, 7:25 am
Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in INS v. [read post]
10 May 2021, 3:20 am
Supreme Court case, Tinker v. [read post]
10 May 2021, 1:00 am
Highly commercially significant oppositions therefore often attract a large number of straw man oppositions, for example in the Broad CRISPR dispute (T 844/18, IPKat). [read post]
9 May 2021, 9:08 pm
But large numbers of comments are not unusual in complex proceedings. [read post]
9 May 2021, 2:02 pm
Supreme Court case, Sierra Club v. [read post]
9 May 2021, 9:00 am
The recent case of Claydon v Mzuri is a particularly harsh example of the application of the prior use case law. [read post]
8 May 2021, 1:54 pm
Both these points are largely uncontroversial in universities and among judges for almost all other words. [read post]
8 May 2021, 10:00 am
In Lassiter v. [read post]
7 May 2021, 7:07 pm
(citation omitted).2 Öcalan v. [read post]
7 May 2021, 3:11 pm
The case, Terry v. [read post]
7 May 2021, 12:05 pm
Langworthy is largely speculative. [read post]
7 May 2021, 8:32 am
Anaya v. [read post]
7 May 2021, 3:58 am
Here, plaintiff’s opposition largely consists of complaints about the quality of defendants’ work which then led to the purported overbilling. [read post]
