Search for: "DOES 1-8"
Results 7201 - 7220
of 32,312
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Feb 2015, 1:21 pm
Davis, footnote 1. [read post]
Medical Treatment Patent Claims Held Patentable Subject Matter Under the Alice/Mayo Section 101 Test
30 Apr 2019, 7:10 pm
The Federal Circuit determined that the challenged claims were not directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under step 1 of the two-part Alice/Mayo test. [read post]
14 Feb 2018, 12:53 pm
On December 8, Protect Democracy resp [read post]
7 Oct 2014, 5:30 am
The White House is well aware of the first point, and is very much hoping that the second does not come to pass. [read post]
9 Jul 2022, 6:11 am
One spouse does the dishes. [read post]
2 Aug 2013, 5:00 am
Id. at 8 (emphasis added). [read post]
22 Jan 2007, 7:41 am
Id. col.3 l.63 to col.4 l.8. [read post]
21 Dec 2023, 3:49 pm
The law, which went into effect on September 1, 2021, authorizes private citizens to bring a civil action against any person who performs or "aids or abets" certain abortions in Texas. [read post]
5 Jun 2014, 12:14 pm
This new act does two things: (1) it precludes litigation against intermediate sellers unless they either took some affirmative action with respect to the product, or the manufacturer for some reason can’t be sued; and (2) it creates a compliance presumption concerning federal safety standards. [read post]
4 Jan 2018, 8:48 am
Jones also raised a second, more general issue concerning the litigation of section 8 Charter claims: in seeking to establish a subjective reasonable expectation of privacy (which is one of the requirements for standing under section 8), does the defence have to lead evidence? [read post]
9 Oct 2019, 1:20 pm
BIDDULPH Sarah– Bureaucratic Inertia: What Does it Tell Us About Governance and Accountability? [read post]
13 Feb 2020, 6:00 am
§ 1252(b)(1). [read post]
5 Oct 2011, 1:52 pm
The cases (and the issues presented, as stated on the court’s website) that will be argued on November 8 and 9 are: Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. [read post]
28 Jun 2021, 9:45 am
But if a state wants to ban viewpoint discrimination by platforms, § 230(c)(2) does not preempt that choice. [read post]
16 Jul 2011, 11:01 am
The removal of this from Claim 1 does not require any modification of the other features of the invention. [read post]
9 Apr 2010, 4:30 pm
ALJ Bullock found that the ASAT invention does not anticipate claims 1-4, 7 and 8 of the ‘728 patent in part because it does not teach all four structures disclosed in the ‘728 patent for performing the “means for vertically locking” in independent claims 1 and 3 – the “central peak,” the “central depression,” the “rounded lip” and the “rectangular lip. [read post]
22 Feb 2012, 2:15 pm
The Drawbacks: While the FAQ is helpful, it does not necessarily calm taxpayers' fears about future ramifications of applying for the VCSP. [read post]
4 Jan 2007, 8:26 pm
JOHN DOE, Defendant.Case Number: O-2004-1175COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF OKLAHOMA2006 OK CR 1; 127 P.3d 1135; 2006 Okla. [read post]
1 Aug 2023, 7:51 am
The seven remaining states have language that does not squarely fit into any of the aforementioned categories. [read post]
17 Feb 2011, 4:35 pm
8. [read post]
