Search for: "Matter of S. G. v B. G." Results 61 - 80 of 2,545
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Aug 2013, 10:13 am by Gregory J. Brodzik
§ 636(b)(1),” and he “proceed[ed] to review the Magistrate Judge’s decision under the deferential standard of review of § 636(b)(1)(A). [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 11:59 pm by Roel van Woudenberg
The appellant's arguments may be summarised as follows:Main request- The prohibition on double patenting set forth in the Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office, Part G-IV, 5.4, which follow an obiter dictum of the Enlarged Board of Appeal in decisions G 1/05 and G 1/06, does not apply in a situation of internal priority, i.e. where a European application claims priority from an earlier European application for which a European patent was… [read post]
9 Aug 2013, 5:03 am by Susan Brenner
Among the contents of the accessed e-mails were communications about [Lazette’s] family, career, financials, health, and other personal matters. [read post]
22 Feb 2018, 10:30 am by Rick St. Hilaire
The University of Chicago no longer is in danger of losing ancient Iranian artifacts following Wednesday's United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Jenny Rubin, et al. v. [read post]
12 Jan 2019, 3:39 pm by Eugene Volokh
Here, by the way, is what Justice Gorsuch said about the matter in U.S. v. [read post]
23 Jan 2013, 3:07 am by R. David Donoghue
  As an initial matter, the court denied plaintiff Snap-On’s argument that the motion was an improper Rule 12(b) motion pursuant to Rule 12(g)(2) because the German Defendants previously filed a Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. [read post]