Search for: "EX PARTE PAUL" Results 81 - 100 of 982
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Jan 2012, 9:30 am by Dennis Crouch
§301 above [with its original 37 CFR §1.501] was enacted years ago accompanying the first [ex parte] reexamination system. [read post]
21 Sep 2014, 4:20 am by INFORRM
This post originally appeared on Paul Bernal’s Blog and is reproduced with permission and thanks [read post]
6 Nov 2021, 11:30 am by Eugene Volokh
The documents revealed some settlement discussions between the government body and a local developer, as well as a sleazy effort to avoid disclosure by proceeding ex parte to secure confidentiality from a local judge who was hearing a lawsuit about the development controversy. [read post]
6 Nov 2021, 11:30 am by Eugene Volokh
The documents revealed some settlement discussions between the government body and a local developer, as well as a sleazy effort to avoid disclosure by proceeding ex parte to secure confidentiality from a local judge who was hearing a lawsuit about the development controversy. [read post]
1 Aug 2018, 4:42 pm by INFORRM
This critique follows on from my previous post, in which I responded to Paul Wragg’s criticism of the manner in which the judge in Richard v BBC dealt with the first stage of the claim – whether Richard had a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in respect of the information broadcast about him. [read post]
11 Jul 2011, 6:30 am by Matt Osenga
  The bill adds unneeded complexity to patent challenges by adding post-grant oppositions while retaining both ex parte reexamination and inter partes review. [read post]
29 Mar 2017, 4:12 pm by INFORRM
On February 13, 2015, Justice Nadelle of the Ontario Court of Justice issued an ex parte production order directing Vice and Makuch to produce documents and data relating to Makuch’s communications with Shirdon, including the Kik text messages. [read post]
9 May 2011, 4:41 pm by Paul Levy
  Regrettably, this is not the first time we have encountered such studied disinterest on the part of Bluehost in protecting the First Amendment rights of its users. [read post]
13 Jul 2011, 6:03 am by Paul Levy
  It is unclear why they took the shortcut, because such motions are filed ex parte and it is only the rare trial judge who looks behind the ex parte motion and requires a showing sufficient to overcome the First Amendment right to speak anonymously. [read post]