Search for: "Modified Opinion filed 3/1/10"
Results 141 - 160
of 728
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Jun 2013, 2:10 pm
On February 1, 2012, the Second Circuit issued an opinion in favor of the merchants. [read post]
5 Mar 2015, 5:10 pm
Sterling, 822 S.W.2d 1, 10 (Tex. 1991), modified on other grounds by Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. v. [read post]
10 May 2018, 8:02 pm
On December 9, 2016, Doggett filed a motion for new trial and, on January 6, 2017, a motion to reconsider his motion JNOV or, alternatively, a motion to vacate and/or modify the judgment, both of which were overruled by operation of law. [read post]
11 Aug 2011, 8:56 pm
No. 13-10-00350-CV (Tex.App. - Corpus Christi, Aug. 10, 2011) MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez This is an arbitration case. [read post]
27 Feb 2011, 12:08 pm
The Court divided 3 (opinion of the Court) to 2.5 (with one concurring in judgment only) to 1 (partial concurrence, partial dissent) to 3 (full dissent). [read post]
1 Jul 2020, 8:55 am
The board interprets thus claim 1 as explained by the appellant, i. e. that the controller according to claim 1 of the Main Request does not divide the amount after each purchase at the EC site but that the reward is divided between the two parties over time.Hence, the apparatus according to claim 1 of the Main Request corresponds essentially to the apparatus of claim 1 of the Auxiliary Request, which had been filed to clarify this issue. [read post]
25 Sep 2009, 1:58 pm
Owens, 1 S.W.3d 315, 319-20 (Tex. [read post]
6 Dec 2019, 4:05 am
The respondent-opponent filed the following additional evidence in appeal:(E10) EP 1 774 878 A1IV. [read post]
2 Sep 2015, 8:07 am
If contract modified 1. [read post]
2 Sep 2015, 8:07 am
If contract modified 1. [read post]
2 Sep 2015, 8:07 am
If contract modified 1. [read post]
6 May 2012, 5:01 pm
It contains an interesting discussion with respect to the use of an A 54(3) document.Claim 1 of the main request before the Board read:1. [read post]
29 May 2018, 3:26 am
(...)IIReasons for the Decision:11.1 Admissibility of Oppositions:34 All of the oppositions filed within the opposition period meet the requirements of Articles 99(1) & 100 EPC and of Rules 3(1) and 76 EPC. [read post]
27 Oct 2012, 7:00 am
There are three reasons. 1. [read post]
5 Nov 2015, 9:46 am
Baxter responded to Belden’s suggestion that askilled artisan would have had no reason to modify board5 of JP ’910 to prevent twisting, as required by claim 1 ofBelden’s patent. [read post]
8 May 2011, 3:01 pm
Such an obligation cannot be derived from A 94(3). [read post]
4 Nov 2021, 7:05 am
Child issues also come before the court when unmarried parents file an original SAPCR or when unmarried or formerly married parents file a petition to modify the parent-child relationship. [read post]
4 Nov 2021, 7:05 am
Child issues also come before the court when unmarried parents file an original SAPCR or when unmarried or formerly married parents file a petition to modify the parent-child relationship. [read post]
1 Dec 2021, 12:13 pm
Filed with Secretary of State October 07, 2015. ] LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 1096, Chiu. [read post]
12 Apr 2018, 12:11 am
The appellant requests that the decision under appeal be set aside and a patent be granted on the basis of claims 1 to 11 of one of auxiliary requests III to V, all filed on 22 December 2017, or on the basis of claims 1 to 9 of auxiliary request VI filed during the oral proceedings.The further text on file is:description pages1 to 7 as originally filed;drawing sheets1 and 2 as originally filed.VIII. [read post]
