Search for: "Matter of Clark v Clark" Results 1041 - 1060 of 1,912
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Mar 2024, 8:13 am by Marty Lederman
”  Not that it much matters now, but in fact that’s not a question the case raised. [read post]
6 Dec 2016, 1:45 am by Blog Editorial
 Today’s live blog team comprises Emma Cross (Olswang), Matt Clark (CMS), Byron Phillips (Nabarro), Rachel Wilson (Olswang), Clementine Bottet (Nabarro) & Jessica Foley (CMS). 16:30: The court has adjourned for the day. [read post]
29 Mar 2008, 11:50 pm
One can obtain some of the TRUTH of the matter from the 2005 post on IPBiz titled Noyce v. [read post]
9 Jan 2011, 7:31 am by Andrew Frisch
Emcare, Inc., 444 F.3d 403, 409-12 (5th Cir.2006) (finding § 541.304‘s language is ambiguous and resorting to DOL for interpretative guidance); Clark v. [read post]
21 Feb 2020, 5:00 am by Daniel E. Cummins, Esq.
Cummins is the managing partner of the Clarks Summit, PA law firm of Cummins Law. [read post]
12 Feb 2019, 11:14 pm by John Collins
“Undue burden” inapplicable in Australia In Australia, sufficiency under section 40(2)(a) of the Patents Act 1990 requires that the notional skilled addressee can “perform the claimed invention in relation to humans without new inventions or additions or prolonged study of matters presenting initial difficulty” (the Kimberly-Clark test). [read post]