Search for: "Bone v. State" Results 801 - 820 of 1,559
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Aug 2014, 12:24 pm
  The InFuse bone graft device is a Class III, PMA device. [read post]
31 May 2015, 3:47 am
As I shall have to explain, thirty years after the decision in Eisai courts of member states are still working out how to deal with the fall-out from that case. [read post]
7 Mar 2014, 10:33 am
Indeed, while under Article 52(1)(a) CTMR the application date is the seminal moment for the examination invalidity grounds, examiners and Courts are free to consider any material subsequent to the date of application insofar as it enables conclusions to be drawn with regard to the situation as it was on that date [see the CJEU’s orders in Alcon v OHIM, in Case C-192/03P, and Torresan v OHIM, in Case C-5/10]. [read post]
31 May 2007, 4:31 am
Goetzmann, 315 F.3d 457, 460 (5th Cir. 2002); In re Orthopedic Bone Screw Products Liability Litigation, 193 F.3d 781, 794 (3d Cir. 1999); Prohias v. [read post]
22 Dec 2023, 5:29 am by Rose Hughes
 Gold Standard test for novelty reigns supreme, even for subranges (T 1688/20)Make no bones about it: The "credibility test" has no place in the novelty assessment of second medical use claims (T 0558/20)Defining what the invention is not can be as important as defining what the invention is (T 0273/22, Chimeric antibodies/REGENERON)Unambiguous disclosure without patent profanity (T 2171/21)Artificial intelligence and the rise of LLMsThe biggest technological event this year… [read post]
14 Dec 2006, 8:26 am
The Maryland Court of Appeals overturned the Maryland Court of Special Appeals in a 4-3 decision in Goldberg v. [read post]