Search for: "James Sample, III"
Results 61 - 80
of 105
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Sep 2014, 8:19 pm
In a 2010 Slate article (Beware the Myth of Grass-Fed Beef), James E. [read post]
5 Sep 2014, 11:29 am
Just. 85, 96 (2002), reports that 35 percent of a representative sample of Cincinnati residents age 21 and above said they would not be willing to shoot a gun at an armed and threatening burglar who had broken into their home. [read post]
23 Jan 2014, 11:15 pm
Judge James T. [read post]
18 Nov 2013, 8:44 pm
Mueller, III, Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Department of Justice Before the Select Committee on Intelligence discussing the government’s use of USA PATRIOT Act authorities in combating international terrorism. [read post]
3 Nov 2013, 7:08 am
His bill was introduced Tuesday and co-sponsored by Representative James Sensenbrenner, along with 3 Senate Republicans, 13 other Senate Democrats, 40 other House Republicans, and 36 House Democrats. [read post]
5 Apr 2013, 3:19 pm
Commission Group III This is a crowded race, and it hasn’t seen the big money that the other races have seen. [read post]
Guest Post: Eye witness account of India's first compulsory license appeal before the IPAB [Part II]
8 Mar 2013, 2:47 am
The appellant had disclosed its meager patient support packs and sample packs as the extent of its commercial sale. [read post]
26 Dec 2012, 10:16 am
The amicus brief suggests that the IEEE would generally encourage greater clarity but doesn't require it at this stage:"IEEE-SA's current patent policy expressly permits (but does not require) the submitter of a patent commitment to provide with its commitment (i) a not-to-exceed license fee or rate commitment, (ii) a sample license agreement, or (iii) one or more material licensing terms. [read post]
25 May 2012, 8:27 am
Thompson III at Vinson & Elkins in Houston and Daniel J. [read post]
25 May 2012, 8:27 am
Thompson III at Vinson & Elkins in Houston and Daniel J. [read post]
16 May 2012, 2:09 pm
Thompson III at Vinson & Elkins in Houston and Daniel J. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 1:00 pm
The chief prosecutor for military commission, Brig. [read post]
2 Apr 2012, 10:22 pm
If the '403 patent had been challenged e.g. in an opposition the EPO would have been bound to follow established case law and hold that the claimed method was patent-eligible firstly because it is carried out on a sample from the subject and secondly because an in vitro measurement is made, see the Enlarged Appeal Board decision in G 3/08 PRESIDENT'S REFERENCE in which the long-standing practice of the Appeal Boards was approved. [read post]
28 Feb 2012, 6:57 pm
Seaman, DC James F. [read post]
18 Jan 2012, 5:03 pm
Hoffman (Temple University - James E. [read post]
29 Jul 2011, 7:10 pm
James Gildea issued the public version of an Initial Determination (“ID”) (dated July 12, 2011) granting Complainant Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP’s (“Georgia-Pacific”) motion for summary determination that defaulting Respondents Stefco Industries, Inc. and Cellynne Corporation (collectively, “Stefco”) and defaulting Respondent NetPak Elektronik Plastik ve Kozmetik Sanayi Ve Ticaret Ltd. [read post]
19 May 2011, 9:15 am
Next, the Commission determined that the asserted claims of the ‘229 patent are obvious in light of a combination of (i) the AAPA and the knowledge in the art at the time of filing the patent’s priority document, (ii) the AAPA and Nagakari (Japanese unexamined patent application H11-21429), or (iii) the AAPA and the deNeuf product (product samples sold by Murata and provided by Mr. deNeuf). [read post]
25 Apr 2011, 11:09 am
Specifically, the Commission determined to (1) reverse ALJ Gildea’s finding to the extent that it suggests that the AAPA cannot constitute prior art, and (2) find that the asserted claims of the ‘229 patent are obvious in light of a combination of (i) the AAPA and the knowledge in the art at the time of filing the patent’s priority document, (ii) the AAPA and Nagakari (Japanese unexamined patent application H11-21429), or (iii) the AAPA and the deNeuf product… [read post]
21 Jan 2011, 8:03 pm
Civil procedure -- Dismissal -- Failure to prosecute -- Good cause -- Plaintiff did not file timely showing of good cause where showing of good cause was filed four days before hearing on Notice of Lack of Prosecution -- Rule 1.420(e) provides that showing of good cause must be made “at least 5 days before the hearing,” and rule establishes a bright line for providing good cause -- Error to deny motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution JAMES E. [read post]
16 Sep 2010, 3:00 am
But Basel III doesn't go far enough either. [read post]
