Search for: "Doe Nos." Results 1661 - 1680 of 2,061
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Jul 2010, 2:33 pm by Madelaine Lane
State, Nos. 137424 & 137453. [read post]
9 Jul 2010, 4:32 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
., Cancellations Nos. 92045687 and 92046943 (T.T.A.B. 2009). [read post]
9 Jul 2010, 10:20 am by christopher
Nos. 07-56008, 07-56568 United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. [read post]
5 Jul 2010, 5:50 pm by INFORRM
In the present case, as the Judge observed, the action based on the internet publication is subsidiary to the main action. [75] This conclusion was supported by the Court of Human Rights which rejected Times Newspapers’ contention that the “multiple publication rule” was a violation of Article 10 (see Times Newspapers Ltd  (Nos 1 and 2) v. [read post]
3 Jul 2010, 12:00 am by Sex Offender Issues
The first seven counts involved allegations of sexual assault against Jane Doe I, a.k.a. [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 6:00 pm by Eric Schweibenz
Patent Nos. 6,959,985 (the ‘985 patent) and 7,104,630 (the ‘630 patent). [read post]
25 Jun 2010, 2:09 am by John L. Welch
Obschestvo s ogranitchennoy;otvetstvennostiu "WDS", Oppositions Nos. 91182207 and 91184467 (June 16, 2010) [precedential].Under TTAB precedent, a party seeking to invoke Rule 33(b) must meet three conditions: (1) it "must identify documents which the responding party knows to contain the responsive information, and may not merely agree to provide access to a voluminous collection of records which may contain the responsive information;" (2) it "may not rely on the… [read post]
22 Jun 2010, 7:48 pm by Eric Schweibenz
James Gildea issued the public versions of Order Nos. 25 and 26 (dated June 8, 2010) in Certain Video Displays, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. [read post]
21 Jun 2010, 7:38 am by Erin Miller
Regal Beloit Nos. 08-1498 and 09-89, Holder v. [read post]
15 Jun 2010, 4:50 am
”  Accordingly, the court held where “the injured party does not make allegations indicating that an insured’s intoxication prevented him from intending the consequences of his violent behavior,” Pennsylvania law “does not permit an insured … to shift responsibility for the damages resulting from his behavior to his insurer. [read post]