Search for: "Does 1-35"
Results 8061 - 8080
of 9,553
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 May 2010, 6:44 am
Patent No. 6,708,864 (the ‘864 patent) were invalid under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
3 May 2010, 3:01 pm
In decision T 246/86 [2.2], the board found that the abstract does not form part of the disclosure for the purposes of A 123(2). [read post]
3 May 2010, 1:25 pm
In addition to awarding attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
3 May 2010, 11:11 am
No. 98-857, pt. 1, at 44 (1984)). [read post]
3 May 2010, 5:56 am
J.A. van der Meer qq Arilco Holland BV, the Dutch Supreme Court (HR 12 March 2010, LJN BK4932, 08/04424) referred the following question regarding Art. 45 of the Brussels Regulation to the ECJ (Case C-139/10) Does Article 45 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 1 preclude the court with which an appeal is lodged under Article 43 or Article 44 of that regulation from refusing or revoking the declaration of enforceability on a ground, other than one of those specified in … [read post]
2 May 2010, 10:30 pm
Our conversation lasted about 35 minutes, and we talked about his decision to leave Congress to take over at BIO, exciting new technologies BIO companies are working on, healthcare reform, the importance of patents to start-up companies and capital investment requirements. [read post]
2 May 2010, 11:13 am
Sections 34-35 of the Criminal Code does provide a self-defence in light of aggression, but this is limited to those who are the target of the assault. [read post]
1 May 2010, 11:00 am
A European patent application can be refused under A 97(2) or, as in the present case, under A 97(1) EPC 1973 if it or the invention to which it relates does not meet the requirements of the EPC. [read post]
30 Apr 2010, 3:07 pm
. ___ (April 1, 2010, No. [read post]
29 Apr 2010, 4:09 pm
Id. at *8 (citing 35 U.S.C. [read post]
29 Apr 2010, 11:17 am
§ 101, and whether the “machine-or-transformation” test for patent eligibility, contradicts Congressional intent that patents protect “method[s] of doing business” in 35 U.S.C. [read post]
29 Apr 2010, 10:30 am
The statute's plain language [35 U.S.C. [read post]
29 Apr 2010, 6:02 am
The Proposal Proposed Rule 13h-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) would apply to large traders who use the U.S. jurisdictional means to effect transactions in NMS securities, subject to a limited set of exceptions, as well as to broker-dealers who effect such traders’ securities transactions. [read post]
29 Apr 2010, 5:14 am
Here’s what you need to know: 1. [read post]
29 Apr 2010, 12:24 am
1. [read post]
28 Apr 2010, 4:32 pm
This provisions does not apply to "grandfathered" plans. [read post]
28 Apr 2010, 10:51 am
See 35 U.S.C. [read post]
28 Apr 2010, 3:42 am
[1] I love what I do. [read post]
27 Apr 2010, 2:01 pm
The specification here does not contain "such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art" to make and use non-osmotic oral dosage forms with ascending release rates. 35 U.S.C. [read post]
26 Apr 2010, 10:55 pm
The defendants had gotten into the record in each case that when the dog at issue alerted (might have been the same dog, actually), drugs were found something like 35% of the time.So the question: When a dog alert leads to the discovery of drugs around 1/3 of the time, is the alert probable cause to search? [read post]
