Search for: "State v. C. S. S. B."
Results 7881 - 7900
of 15,316
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 May 2015, 2:13 pm
The State Legislature in liberalizing the statutes to effect greater protection to the victims of domestic violence by enactment of L.1980, c. 530, is deemed cognizant that Family Court is a non-jury institution wherein the court sits as both finder of fact and of law. [read post]
31 Jan 2011, 11:07 am
In United States v. [read post]
23 Nov 2020, 1:58 pm
Teller, 53 P.3d 240, 249 (Haw. 2002). = = = = L·U·B·R·I·C·I·O·U·S [T]he patent fails to teach how the invention actually achieves lubriciousness. [read post]
9 Mar 2022, 9:03 am
President Biden signed an executive order on March 9, 2022, outlining the United States government’s strategy and objectives for cryptocurrencies and other digital assets. [read post]
1 Aug 2024, 3:33 pm
Nicholson v. [read post]
4 May 2012, 3:24 am
’ Juror B's wife replied to this at 9:37 P.M. [read post]
6 Sep 2021, 5:21 am
The impression conveyed by all of the testimony and documents admitted into evidence to this [c]ourt is that Ms. [read post]
11 Jun 2009, 4:50 pm
A does not require disqualification; B and C do. [read post]
10 Feb 2024, 4:24 am
Further, the Court stated that it is an established principle of settled case-law that, as a general rule, the submission of facts and evidence by the parties remains possible after the expiry of the relevant time limits, and the EUIPO is not prohibited from taking account of such facts and evidence (mobile.de v EUIPO, C‑418/16 P).In this case, it was accepted by both parties that Mr Noah had submitted the first evidence of use of the Mark within the time limit… [read post]
3 Mar 2009, 3:43 am
Redemption Period: The Court concluded that although Cook's property fell within the definition of agricultural real estate set out in § 1-18-103(c), the 12 month redemption period in subsection (b) was limited to mortgaged agricultural property. [read post]
9 Mar 2020, 1:21 pm
Humira: 5 biosimilars approved, none on the market; some will be entering, but only b/c of patent settlement agreements. 11 years earlier than otherwise might be possible. [read post]
17 Mar 2020, 11:29 am
Even if this creates problems of its own – e.g. it may lead to the counterintuitive result that well-known names end up getting less protection, as happened in C-361/04 Picasso v. [read post]
13 Jul 2010, 9:19 am
Moffit v. [read post]
10 May 2007, 8:30 pm
In part B of the argument, the SG brief states that TSM should not be the exclusive means to establish obviousness. [read post]
3 Jun 2016, 6:13 am
The court first held that its review of the TTAB’s factual findings was de novo under § 1071(b), following the logic of Kappos v. [read post]
27 Jun 2021, 11:04 am
Equally, it would be open to the Secretary of State to exercise the power to prescribe requirements falling within section 21A(2)(a) and/or (b), but not (c), in which case section 21A(1) would bite on tenancies affected by those requirements and not on tenancies only affected by the absence of an EPC. [read post]
24 Oct 2019, 9:19 am
Disclaimers: not really something to bother with anymore under EU trade mark law Patent-och v Mats Hansson Case C-705/17, CJEU (June 2019) A disclaimer is an odd thing: “it is part of my mark, but please ignore it”. [read post]
1 Apr 2015, 11:26 am
C. [read post]
11 May 2024, 10:09 am
” 750 ILCS 508(b). [read post]
12 Feb 2013, 4:24 am
In the newly published decision of Benjamin v. [read post]
