Search for: "Does 1 - 21" Results 121 - 140 of 18,393
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Apr 2020, 11:32 am by Patent Litigation Group
Jan. 21, 2003). [12] Id. at *1. [13] Id. at *3. [14] Id. at *1-3. [15] Id. at *4. [16] Id. at *8. [17] Id. at *13. [18] London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. [read post]
30 Apr 2021, 11:17 am by Kluwer Patent blogger
Schauinsland’: “Manifest partiality of the president of the boards of appeal in case G 1/21 The president of the boards of appeal, Mr Josefsson, has decided to put himself as chair in G 1/21. [read post]
30 Apr 2021, 11:17 am by Kluwer Patent blogger
Schauinsland’: “Manifest partiality of the president of the boards of appeal in case G 1/21 The president of the boards of appeal, Mr Josefsson, has decided to put himself as chair in G 1/21. [read post]
1 Aug 2023, 8:43 am by Marcel Pemsel
Art. 41(1) CDR does not mention patents but only designs and utility models. [read post]
23 Aug 2012, 6:36 am
August 21, 2012).* Defendant’s IAC claim in his child pornography case does not identify any issue his lawyers were deficient in, and the warrants were presumptively valid and subject to the good faith exception. [read post]
21 Jan 2010, 2:09 am
 in the commission of a crime, New York City law does not prohibit residents from  ...... [read post]
6 Oct 2007, 10:15 pm
Randolph does not require that the target of the search be asked for consent first. [read post]
24 Sep 2023, 12:50 pm by Dimo Michailov
  Assuming he remains in the U.S. and does not file for a timely extension or change of status, he will be considered unlawfully present as of November 21, 2023. [read post]
21 Nov 2008, 1:48 pm
Once imposed, automatic stay requiring a stop to almost all debt collection activity against the debtor and his property remains in effect until the earliest of the following events: 1. [read post]
23 Dec 2011, 1:19 pm by Brad Pauley
Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., S185827, which presents the following issues for review: “(1) Does Labor Code section 1194 apply to a cause of action alleging meal and rest period violations, or may attorney’s fees be awarded under Labor Code section 218.5? [read post]
18 Oct 2013, 10:23 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
Thus, we do notsustain the rejection of claims 1, 17, and 21 and of their dependent claims 2,3, 7-11, 16, 19, and 20 as unpatentable over Nunes and Elzinga. [read post]