Search for: "Phillips v. Bottoms" Results 61 - 80 of 101
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Nov 2011, 1:19 am
"  The IPKat's friend Iona Harding, who belongs to the host firm, kindly took notes and has sent the Kats a little report which we are pleased to reproduce here: "The debate was chaired by the IPKat's own Jeremy Phillips. [read post]
4 Aug 2011, 8:43 am by Paul F. Prestia
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit came to the same conclusion, regarding intrinsic versus extrinsic evidence, in its 2005 Phillips v. [read post]
10 Jul 2011, 4:43 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
The bottom line of the case RETRACTABLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. [read post]
4 Jul 2011, 8:53 am by Edward Craven, Matrix.
The bottom layer consists of a First-tier Tribunal, which is organised into chambers according to subject matter (e.g. the Social Entitlement Chamber, the Tax Chamber, the Health, Education and Social Care Chamber etc.). [read post]
30 May 2011, 11:37 pm by Aileen McColgan, Matrix.
Lord Phillips reiterated, as [58], that “the HRA does not have retroactive effect”, also that its interpretation ought to mirror that of the Convention. [read post]
29 Apr 2011, 1:03 pm
The worm at the bottom of the bottle was an inventor admitting not disclosing what he thought the best mode for practicing the invention. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 2:00 am by John Day
Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim & Ballon, 568 N.Y.S.2d 84, 85 (N. [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 4:20 am by Donn Zaretsky
Also in that initial posting, I noted that the district court had followed the First Circuit in Phillips v. [read post]
20 Jan 2011, 4:50 pm
" Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; see Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. [read post]