Search for: "Doe 103"
Results 1741 - 1760
of 3,234
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
Ford Motor Company v. Washington (Ford III): The Third Time Is Not the Charm (and it ain’t over yet)
5 Jun 2013, 10:10 am
§ 16–65–103). [read post]
4 Jun 2013, 11:22 am
Sci. 91, 103 (1979) (colorectal cancer risk ratio 1.55); E. [read post]
30 May 2013, 5:01 pm
In exceptional circumstances the appellant may of course decide to withdraw the appeal without filing a statement of grounds of appeal and before the time limit for doing so has expired, thus qualifying for the reimbursement of the appeal fee under R 103(1)(b). [read post]
28 May 2013, 10:32 am
In our 2010 article, Professor Robert Merges and I argued that the law does not require the "threshold" question be decided in any particular order. [read post]
26 May 2013, 3:05 pm
State, 100 So. 3d 99, 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). [read post]
26 May 2013, 3:05 pm
State, 100 So. 3d 99, 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). [read post]
25 May 2013, 11:01 am
It turns out that in 2012 the Board revoked the patent in almost half of the 103 cases (47%); further amendments was the second most frequent outcome (32%) whereas a dismissal of the appeal (leaving the patent as amended by the OD) and rejection were less frequently observed (10% and 7%, respectively). [read post]
23 May 2013, 5:01 pm
Thus, the correction proposed by the appellant, and set out in the claims, does not meet the requirements of R 139.[11] The decision of the ED is therefore correct in the point under appeal. [read post]
23 May 2013, 11:04 am
In the 1980s, we lost Americans to terrorism at our Embassy in Beirut; at our Marine Barracks in Lebanon; on a cruise ship at sea; at a disco in Berlin; and on Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie. [read post]
20 May 2013, 8:23 am
Stotts-Brown, 103 S.W.3d 664, 669 (Tex. [read post]
19 May 2013, 5:01 pm
According to the impugned decision the ED was, however, of the opinion that a request for a hearing could not be considered to be a request for OPs pursuant to A 116 and that [the applicant] was not legally entitled to an oral hearing under the EPC […].[2.3] In this context, however, the impugned decision does not indicate anywhere how the term “hearing” would have to be concretely interpreted, i.e. what the ED understood the request for a hearing to actually mean. [read post]
19 May 2013, 9:12 am
., No. 94-02-103, in District Court of Wise County, Texas, 271st Judicial District. [read post]
15 May 2013, 9:33 am
The Patent Owner does not arguethat these claims are not indefinite. [read post]
15 May 2013, 3:54 am
§§ 101, 102, 103 or 112.. [read post]
13 May 2013, 9:38 am
And the Supreme Court has told us that, while avoiding confusion between §101 and §§102 and 103, merely adding existing computer technology to abstract ideas — mental steps — does not as a matter of substance convert an abstract idea into a machine. [read post]
12 May 2013, 9:54 am
Perpetuating the myth that the computer is where the magic lies does nothing other than ignore reality. [read post]
12 May 2013, 7:22 am
The evidence does not support the most obvious forms of common causation. [read post]
10 May 2013, 5:45 am
However, merely having a right to sue does not give a person the standing to sue for infringement in the US. [read post]
7 May 2013, 8:53 am
As the judgment records: The Claimants (collectively “Nestec”) are respectively the owner, exclusive licensee and alleged exclusive sub-licensee of European Patent (UK) No 2 103 236 (“the Patent”). [read post]
