Search for: "Cover v. ID Board of Correction" Results 121 - 140 of 170
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Apr 2012, 7:07 am by Marty Lederman
The two could, moreover, be conjoined, so that the Court's holding would be limited further still, to cover only cases in which both sets of predicates are satisfied.Limited Commerce Clause Holding:Even assuming arguendo that Congress cannot require any and every purchase of goods or services under any circumstances (but cf. [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 4:05 am by Marty Lederman
Then, beginning in the Reagan Administration, Congress continued to add further classes of Medicaid beneficiaries, eventually covering all pregnant women, children age five and under with family incomes below 133% of the federal poverty line, and children between the ages of six and 18 with family incomes below the federal poverty level.At each stage of expansion, Congress required that States include these new groups as [read post]
1 Sep 2011, 5:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
In this respect, the EBA notes that e.g. in claim 1 of auxiliary request III all catalytic molecules are excluded from protection which show site-specific intermolecular catalytic cleavage of the substrate corresponding to a defined portion of sequence ID number 135 under defined conditions. [read post]
22 Dec 2010, 8:33 pm by Jeff Gamso
  I discussed it at length when the Supremes decided Caperton v. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 12:25 am by Marie Louise
Rome Fastener (Patently-O) CAFC: En Banc request denied on issue of inequitable conduct by non-inventor CEO: Avid ID v. [read post]
24 Jun 2010, 3:59 pm by Gene Quinn
  Does the Supreme Court really understand the magnitude of the importance of getting the Bilski case correct? [read post]
2 Jun 2010, 6:15 am by Steven Peck
COLA Requests Plan of Corrective Action: On April 19, 2001, COLA's ADPA sent Miracle Star a draft of the Program Monitoring Summary, which requested a Plan of Corrective Action. [read post]
7 May 2010, 11:11 am
The lame-brained patent Board misconstrued claims (too broadly, naturally: "the Board interpreted the claim to embrace both a forward and rearward sweep angle"), and found an interference, ruling in favor of UTC. [read post]