Search for: "PRECISION STANDARD V US" Results 1801 - 1820 of 4,554
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Dec 2019, 9:41 am
In the case of a combination of active ingredients, each active ingredient must be specifically, precisely and individually identifiable in the wording of the patent claims.The name of the active ingredient does not need to be referred to expressly in the claims, provided that the active ingredient is specifically and precisely identifiable as at the priority date of the patent. [read post]
1 Jun 2018, 8:23 am by Eugene Volokh
Plaintiffs might view the church's statements as "counterculture practices" that "fail[] to meet the ordinary standard of care. [read post]
1 Feb 2012, 3:48 am by Russ Bensing
”  (The good-faith exception for searches with a warrant had been established in 1984 by US v. [read post]
18 Sep 2010, 9:49 am by Marta Requejo
Put in my terminology, the “hinge” to an ATS claim can be met by an actor determined to be liable under US, rather than international law, standards. [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 8:01 am by Matthew Tokson
Their primary argument is based on the recent Supreme Court case Carpenter v. [read post]
20 Dec 2012, 10:34 am by Florian Mueller
In the Apple-Samsung context I wrote in a standard-essential Samsung v. [read post]
9 Oct 2014, 9:12 am
 Hospitals are generally faced with competing objectives of balancing budgets, remaining competitive, complying with health care and regulatory standards, and continuing to offer needed services to the community. [read post]
21 Sep 2014, 10:09 am
Lots of folks on the internet have been talking about the recent district judge decision in Perez v. [read post]