Search for: "In re Doe, b. 10/27/97."
Results 61 - 80
of 117
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Feb 2016, 4:43 pm
” See In re Fairway Grp. [read post]
14 Feb 2016, 6:25 pm
As was stated in Re P(DM) v. [read post]
19 Oct 2015, 11:22 am
Lastly, we will offer predictions of what we can expect to see from European Union member states in the course of implementing the private damages Directive required to be in place by December 27, 2016. [read post]
1 Oct 2015, 3:15 pm
” In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430 (Fed.Cir. 1996)Of long-felt need:Next, Patent Owners argue that the invention claimed in claim 19satisfied the long-felt but previously unmet need “for a solid oral [multiplesclerosis] treatment. [read post]
14 Sep 2015, 4:32 pm
To be sure, the value investor “does not believe that the market price accurately reflects public information at the time he transacts. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 6:52 am
Since the 2010 amendments, courts have enforced discovery requests for testifying expert witnesses’ notes because they were not draft reports or specific communications between counsel and expert witnesses[10]. [read post]
25 Apr 2015, 11:03 am
This point again is correct, but the Manual does not come to terms with the challenge often made to what I call the assumption of stochastic risk. [read post]
18 Dec 2014, 6:00 am
B. [read post]
12 Dec 2014, 12:11 pm
97% have completed the pilot. [read post]
18 Nov 2014, 1:28 pm
Natural Res. [read post]
13 Oct 2014, 5:44 am
Id. at 996-97. [read post]
24 Sep 2014, 6:08 am
You would be paying less.Eric Small August 6th at 11:48 AM:Holston is getting it for lessKristin Ford August 6th at 10:53 AM:No they're not. [read post]
18 Sep 2014, 8:19 pm
Nutr J 9:10. 11. [read post]
22 Jul 2014, 7:00 am
“People who are commissioning these audits don’t seem to understand that they are … not worth the paper that they’re written on[5]. [read post]
21 Jul 2014, 10:01 pm
“People who are commissioning these audits don’t seem to understand that they are … not worth the paper that they’re written on[5]. [read post]
8 Jul 2014, 4:20 am
And that period would have expired in 29 of the 42 cases that reached certification as part of the court’s preliminary approval of a settlement.[4] Figure 2 presents the results of the same analysis for cases brought under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, which is governed by a five-year limitations period.[5] Data on these cases is taken from a random sample of 500 cases drawn from roughly 1,200 securities class actions filed between 2002 and… [read post]
29 Apr 2014, 1:08 pm
Section 113 does not apply in respect of a determination issued under section 119. [read post]
17 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm
Dies würde den Einsprechenden benachteiligen und wäre auch nicht verfahrensökonomisch. [read post]
15 Sep 2013, 5:01 pm
(i) This is precisely what happened in T 951/92 cited by the petitioner: the Board found that the ED had not acted in compliance with A 96 and A 97, R 51(3) EPC 1973 (A 94(3); R 71(2) EPC 2000), which require that any communication under A 94(3) EPC shall contain a reasoned statement covering, where appropriate, all the grounds against the grant of the European patent. [read post]
8 May 2013, 5:01 pm
In no way can it be seen to objectively establish a basis for the firm belief of the appellant that the appeal was already thoroughly examined for compliance with all the usual formal requirements.[10] The Board adds that not even the communication of the file number to the appellant on 27 April 2012 […] could have potentially established the legitimate expectation that everything was in order with the appeal, see also G 2/97 [5.2].[11] The appellant submitted that… [read post]
