Search for: "MATTER OF T F"
Results 721 - 740
of 13,928
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Mar 2019, 4:11 am
Secondly, even when debate has been formally closed, although this normally terminates the possibility of new submissions, debate may be re-opened at the discretion of the Board [T 595/90], which should also apply to EPO departments of the first instance. [read post]
16 Apr 2013, 8:30 pm
See TorPharm, 336 F.3d at 1330 (“[T]hepublic is entitled to equate an inventor’s acquiescence tothe examiner’s narrow view of patentable subject matterwith abandonment of the rest. [read post]
26 Aug 2010, 11:44 pm
In a particularly introspective moment, the Chief Judge argues that the bench is lacking in persons familiar with the life experiences of the poor: There’s been much talk about diversity on the bench, but there’s one kind of diversity that doesn’t exist: No truly poor people are appointed as federal judges, or as state judges for that matter. [read post]
9 Sep 2013, 8:43 pm
AT&T Mobility Services LLC, (9th Cir. [read post]
29 Jun 2023, 12:29 am
T 0438/19 of 27-06-2023 referred the following questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal for decision:1. [read post]
11 Dec 2020, 10:59 am
., 2020 WL 7137786, -- F.3d --, Nos. 19-2581, 19-2741 (7th Cir. [read post]
23 Feb 2015, 10:02 pm
If you don’t have the time, fudge the numbers, don’t record corrective actions or actually document 129 degrees F as your final internal cook temperature of raw chicken because you didn’t properly train your staff — well, you are exposed. [read post]
3 Sep 2016, 5:39 am
Believe or disbelieve, it doesn’t matter.* The issue at hand could be anything. [read post]
18 May 2017, 8:00 am
From the post: [I]t’s a little weird to think of voluntariness as just a fact. [read post]
5 Nov 2007, 3:14 am
The court therefore remanded the matter for further development of the salient issues. [read post]
21 May 2008, 11:03 am
The military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (”DADT”) policy on homosexual service members is put through the wringer in Witt v. [read post]
5 Jun 2020, 1:49 pm
That doesn’t mean that the relatively novel NOCI should not be treated like a demand letter for Noerr-Pennington purposes, but it does seem to me to require a distinct analysis, especially since the related §512(f) isn’t subject to Noerr-Penningtonas far as I am aware.) [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
Most warnings concern a product’s use – that if you use (or don’t use) the product in a certain way, you are likely to get hurt; and if you follow the warning, you won’t. [read post]
27 Feb 2011, 7:31 pm
Envirochem, Inc., 264 F.3d 1358, 1366 (Fed. [read post]
26 Jul 2022, 6:16 am
But not all was lost, and we hadn’t been forsaken. [read post]
6 Nov 2018, 10:25 am
Who's to say what kind of knowledge matters and what kind doesn't? [read post]
24 Jan 2022, 4:33 pm
The Supreme Court has stated that "[i]t is the general rule, of course, that a federal appellate court does not consider an issue not passed upon below. [read post]
14 Apr 2020, 1:30 am
Constantin then appealed the decision, which ultimately ended up with the CJEU.The Court began by limiting the scope of the issue, following the guidance of the Advocate General, to only consider whether the mark was contrary to accepted principles of morality, as the matter didn't relate to any issues of public policy.To consider the above, the Court noted that, to determine the scope of Article 7(1)(f) "...it is not sufficient for the sign concerned to be… [read post]
14 Apr 2020, 1:30 am
Constantin then appealed the decision, which ultimately ended up with the CJEU.The Court began by limiting the scope of the issue, following the guidance of the Advocate General, to only consider whether the mark was contrary to accepted principles of morality, as the matter didn't relate to any issues of public policy.To consider the above, the Court noted that, to determine the scope of Article 7(1)(f) "...it is not sufficient for the sign concerned to be… [read post]
14 Apr 2020, 1:30 am
Constantin then appealed the decision, which ultimately ended up with the CJEU.The Court began by limiting the scope of the issue, following the guidance of the Advocate General, to only consider whether the mark was contrary to accepted principles of morality, as the matter didn't relate to any issues of public policy.To consider the above, the Court noted that, to determine the scope of Article 7(1)(f) "...it is not sufficient for the sign concerned to be… [read post]
