Search for: "State v. Character" Results 6881 - 6900 of 7,506
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Feb 2009, 8:58 am
  Heck, I could tweet it in 140 characters or less (and did, as a matter of fact). [read post]
13 Feb 2009, 8:00 am
(IPKat)   United States US General Sen Gregg withdraws from nomination to be next Secretary of Commerce (Inventive Step) (Patently-O) Influx of Big Content lawyers at Department of Justice: cause for concern? [read post]
11 Feb 2009, 5:34 am
The Court fails, however, to explain why a preliminary issue of precisely the same character is brought within scope. [read post]
10 Feb 2009, 6:39 am
This afternoon, after an interminable delay, the Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi of the Court of Justice of the European Communities was finally posted on the Curia website in Case C-487/07 L'Oréal SA, Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC, Laboratoire Garnier & Cie v Bellure NV, Malaika Investments Ltd, trading as "Honey pot cosmetic & Perfumery Sales"), Starion… [read post]
8 Feb 2009, 1:19 pm by Chris Martin
There are archetypal characters: the jock brother who makes gay jokes, the sinister psychiatrist, the judgmental minister from the Griffith’s church, and the sympathetic gay man with whom Bobby shares a drink at a dance club. [read post]
6 Feb 2009, 7:00 am
: No access to ‘non-minor amendments’ on EU website (Class 46) EPO gets access to India’s traditional knowledge digital library (Spicy IP)   Germany Bundesgerichtshof clarifies circumstances under which work may be considered ‘not published’ under s 71 Copyright Act in case concerning Vivaldi’s ‘Motezuma’ (IPKat) Federal Patent Court: ‘Die Drachenjäger’ (the dragon hunter) devoid of… [read post]
3 Feb 2009, 2:29 pm
Example 2: (1) An invention of a parent cell (specified invention); and (2) An invention of a fused cell prepared from the parent cell Explanation:   Since a fused cell contains, in general, the characters of its parent cell as a part of its characters, the substantial part of the matters being to be stated in the claim of both inventions is considered to be the same. [read post]