Search for: "In re I.S."
Results 801 - 820
of 13,469
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Jan 2023, 12:01 am
The structure of the book follows an adage I once heard for legal memoranda: (1) tell ‘em what you’re goin’ to tell ‘em; (2) tell ‘em; and (3) tell ‘em what you told ‘em. [read post]
13 Jan 2012, 8:08 am
See In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981). [read post]
25 Jul 2009, 9:39 pm
I must say I am impressed at how much of a hold the Gates case seems to have taken on the public imagination--not just Fox News, nor the extremes of the blogosphere, but here it is the lede story in my paper New York Times--second lede in the Wall Street Journal (i.e., Saturday morning). [read post]
22 May 2020, 8:34 am
In the last fifty years, as noted by one commentator, Paul DeCamp, employers who pay workers by commission “have struggled with figuring out whether they’re covered by the Section 7(i) exemption. [read post]
6 Sep 2010, 7:55 am
We're in an era of digital angels but we still have analog rules. [read post]
4 Nov 2009, 6:34 am
In other words, to show you're a good advocate, but not necessarily a good scholar. [read post]
27 Oct 2011, 11:33 am
They're not supposed to. [read post]
25 Aug 2009, 11:01 pm
There are serious questions of whether Mexico is becoming that scariest of things, a military state in only partial control -- i.e., a Latin American Pakistan. [read post]
4 Mar 2020, 1:57 pm
" Here, there was "loose cannabis" -- i.e., "flower" or "bud" (in the stoner lingo) -- contained in an flexible plastic packaging that you open by squeezing. [read post]
15 Jun 2007, 5:12 pm
Bair" suggest that it's time to republish, update and provide further underscore to one of my most popular blog posts of last year "Yeah We're Different Alright". [read post]
2 Nov 2022, 3:33 am
In re Berkeley Lights, Inc., 2022 USPQ2d 1000 (TTAB 2022) [precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christopher Larkin). [read post]
27 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
Document D2 […] discloses examples of “Styling Mousse 3” and “Styling Mousse 4”, respectively, i.e. [read post]
4 Dec 2010, 1:01 pm
”The problem, as I indicated, is that once you’re on Avvo, you’re stuck. [read post]
15 Mar 2011, 7:25 pm
They're not solved very often, so on the rare occasions they are, authorities seek the chance to show the public how "tuff" they are. [read post]
25 May 2007, 6:36 am
But there's a problem far worse than disparate enforcement - and that's disparate impact, i.e., where the very design of the bar rules unduly burden solos. [read post]
9 Mar 2007, 6:19 pm
If you're supposed to be spending a specific time period with your children, there's nothing wrong with going to the other parent's home many times to try to pick up your children. [read post]
6 Sep 2011, 1:31 pm
The Supreme Court of Canada will rule this Thursday morning at 9:45 AM whether it will hear an appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal, which confirmed - as most copyright lawyers expected - that Re:Sound (formerly NRCC) has no basis to pursue a tariff for the use of sound recordings in films shown in theatres or on TV.Here's what I said about this case back in February of 2011:Re:Sound Proposed Tariff for Use of Soundtracks in Theatres & TV Nixed (Again) Presumably, very few… [read post]
26 Apr 2018, 3:22 am
In the PCT phase, the USPTO acting as RO had previously granted the request for restoration of priority under the 'unintentional' criterion, but no valid request had been filed at the EPO as dO under Rule 49ter.2 PCT, i.e. [read post]
26 Apr 2018, 3:22 am
In the PCT phase, the USPTO acting as RO had previously granted the request for restoration of priority under the 'unintentional' criterion, but no valid request had been filed at the EPO as dO under Rule 49ter.2 PCT, i.e. [read post]
30 Jun 2020, 11:19 am
To the extent that the public were to perceive "Nosecco"as referring to Prosecco, this would indicate an absence of Prosecco i.e. [read post]
