Search for: "MATTER OF C B J B"
Results 141 - 160
of 3,043
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Oct 2014, 5:50 am
Juror C then announced that `no matter what happens, my verdict is for guilty. [read post]
21 Jun 2018, 8:40 am
C. [read post]
28 Apr 2015, 11:43 pm
Although Birss J did not refer to recent decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the right of communication/making available to the public, he appeared to dismiss implicitly the approach taken in Svensson [Katposts here] and its progeny, ie BestWater [here] and C More Entertainment [here and here]. [read post]
19 Jul 2018, 7:19 am
McDonnell, July 12, 2018, Weinstein, J.). [read post]
11 Jun 2020, 9:13 am
(NEA), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I, DONALD J. [read post]
20 Jul 2023, 6:00 am
B. [read post]
20 Jul 2023, 6:00 am
B. [read post]
29 Apr 2013, 6:13 am
§ 2B1.1(b)(2)(A) rather than a 6-level enhancement under § 2B1.1(b)(2)(C). [read post]
6 Oct 2020, 9:00 pm
Alan C. [read post]
6 Oct 2020, 9:00 pm
Alan C. [read post]
6 Mar 2008, 3:18 am
Jan. 29, 2008) (Shadur, J.). [read post]
13 Nov 2007, 3:17 am
P. 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. [read post]
14 Aug 2023, 5:36 am
It has provided virtually no guidance on what it means for a matter to present a “major question,” it has provided little guidance on what it means for a matter to present a “major question,” it has provided little guidance on the degree of statutory specificity necessary to provide agency authority over a major question . . . . [read post]
29 Dec 2012, 1:05 pm
(b) The bar against the patenting of micro-organisms: The guidelines deal with the patenting of micro-organisms under Section 3(c) and Section 3(j) of the Patent Act. [read post]
4 Jul 2014, 5:27 am
The matter then went to the Supreme Court of Ohio. [read post]
24 Sep 2011, 5:28 am
Attorney Paul J. [read post]
6 Sep 2022, 4:12 pm
§ 331(j). [read post]
22 Apr 2007, 7:15 am
(c) Conditions for Patentability; Non-Obvious Subject Matter- Section 103 is amended to read as follows: `Sec. 103. [read post]
17 Mar 2015, 7:12 am
It has thus satisfied the requirements of Rule 12(b)(6). [read post]
27 Dec 2022, 4:33 pm
Simply put, the CJEU found that a first SPC granted for a single active ingredient A may preclude the subsequent grant of a second SPC for a combination of active ingredients A+B under Article 3(c) if the two SPCs are based on the same patent, if the scope of protection conferred by the first SPC already encompasses the combination of A+B, and if the combination of A+B is not an “independent invention”, i.e., an invention in its own right that is… [read post]
