Search for: "MATTER OF T F" Results 1521 - 1540 of 13,929
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Aug 2015, 11:12 pm by Florian Mueller
The Mercedes F 015 is also very exciting.With the F 015 being many years off, my next car will most likely be a Tesla, and I will definitely consider an Apple or Google car once available. [read post]
18 Aug 2015, 6:44 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Transp., Inc., 82 F.3d 484 (D.C.Cir.1996), violations of Connecticut transportation laws and regulations aren’t actionable as false advertising; given that it wasn’t clear whether state transportation laws applied to Uber, Uber’s representations that it complied with the law couldn’t be false or misleading. [read post]
18 Jan 2010, 3:00 am by Peter A. Mahler
  The court's docket lists over 2,300 separate documents filed, and the case isn't even close to being tried. [read post]
21 Sep 2021, 12:26 am by Rose Hughes
As provided by G1/03 (r. 2.5.2), if the technical feature is included in the claim as a functional feature then it is a matter of sufficiency, whereas if the technical feature is not included in the claim, it is a matter of inventive step (see also the EPO Guidelines for Examination (F-III-12)). [read post]
24 Aug 2013, 7:24 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
Whether viewed as a matter of disclaimer or of lexicography, the result is the same: the kind of three-dimensional culturing protected by the patent excludes use of beads. [read post]
7 Aug 2018, 5:31 am by Eugene Volokh
(For instance, it was reviewed in, among other places, the Hollywood Reporter, Salon, the Austin Chronicle, and the New York Post, publications that generally don't review pornography, and it was described by them as horror, albeit with some "perversity," and not porn.) [read post]
5 Nov 2009, 12:29 pm
And most of these cases aren't even drug cases. [read post]
21 Dec 2012, 11:41 am by Bexis
  Even though the opinion all but conceded that design claims would fail under the “sameness” analysis used by the Supreme Court in Mensing, the First Circuit decided that reasoning didn’t matter, dug in its heels, and ruled that, no matter what, it wasn’t going to preempt the plaintiff’s sole surviving claim. [read post]
1 Oct 2007, 3:37 am
Zeneca Inc, -- F.3d --, 2007 WL 2376312 (3rd Cir.) [read post]
10 Sep 2022, 2:42 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
AND As a threshold matter, we first note that Mr. [read post]