Search for: "DOES 1-116"
Results 901 - 920
of 1,193
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Oct 2011, 2:21 pm
Eq. 1, 4 (E. [read post]
23 Oct 2011, 10:00 pm
But does US agriculture really benefit from exports? [read post]
21 Oct 2011, 1:31 pm
§102(a)(1) and (a)(2) Under the new 35 U.S.C. [read post]
19 Oct 2011, 10:35 am
City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116, the public agencies did not “approve” the project for purposes of CEQA. [read post]
19 Oct 2011, 8:23 am
, [1944] A.C. 116 (H. [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 3:40 pm
Makofski, 116 SW 3d 176 (Tex. [read post]
13 Sep 2011, 3:02 pm
§§ 133 or 151 $540 $622 Extension fees for petitions for 1-month extensions of time to take required actions, set at the following amounts: Former Fee Amount New Fee Amount With 15% Surcharge Extension for response within first month: $130 First petition: $130 $150 Extension for response within second month: $490 Second petition: $360 $414 Extension for response within third month: $1,110 Third or subsequent petition: $620 $714 Extension for response within fourth… [read post]
11 Sep 2011, 7:36 pm
§ 257(c)(1). [read post]
8 Sep 2011, 5:00 pm
Since independent claim 1 does not contain these features it does not meet the requirement following from A 84 taken in combination with R 43(1) and (3) that any independent claim must contain all the technical features essential to the definition of the invention. [read post]
7 Sep 2011, 1:23 am
Here is what to watch now in the world of D&O: 1. [read post]
2 Aug 2011, 3:55 pm
Parks, 1 S.W.3d 96, 102 (Tex. 1999). [read post]
22 Jul 2011, 10:06 am
116. [read post]
20 Jul 2011, 5:43 pm
So here are a mess of somewhat random reactions.1. [read post]
17 Jul 2011, 3:31 am
ICC Press Release, June 17, 2011 Justice, Peace, and What Does This Mean for Victims? [read post]
14 Jul 2011, 3:20 pm
The presence of such clauses does not, however, guarantee the elimination of interlocutory or adjectival contests concerning the law which will govern, and the forum or mode of dispute resolution that will apply, to the determination of an international sporting dispute. [read post]
1 Jul 2011, 6:46 am
Justice Spender found that: claims 1 and 5 of the first innovation patent were not infringed by Bass, because the lowering of a chin plate or floor of the accused apparatus does not, in itself, allow or permit a fish to pass from the front to the exit of the device, as defined in the claims, but rather that, because additional components are involved, the mechanism in the Bass devices for achieving a unidirectional flow of fish is a substantially new or different mechanism… [read post]
29 Jun 2011, 3:01 pm
In line with this principle, R 71a EPC 1973, now R 116, gives the OD the discretionary power to refuse new requests for amendments, if amended claims are presented after the final date fixed under that provision. [read post]
28 Jun 2011, 12:33 am
This particular episode of litigation concerned IPCom’s European Patent (UK) No. 1 841 268, a divisional of European Patent (UK) No. 1 186 189 which had found fame in the previous round. [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 1:50 am
United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886). [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 9:03 am
Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 116 Wn.2d 352, 357, 804 P.2d 621 (1991) (quoting RCW 51.16.120(1)). [read post]
