Search for: "PRECISION STANDARD V US"
Results 1941 - 1960
of 4,554
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Oct 2017, 10:54 am
In Ex parte McAward, the USPTO acknowledged that the BRI “standard differs from the claim interpretation standard used during patent litigation…. [read post]
25 Oct 2017, 3:54 am
Citations in the post are to that list and to paragraph numbers in the Communication.Index to Issues and AnnexPresumed illegalDue process at sourceLegal competence v practical competenceDue process v quality standardsManifest illegality v contextual informationIllegality on the face of the statute v prosecutorial discretionOffline v onlineMore is better, faster is bestLiability shield v removal toolNational laws v coherent EU… [read post]
18 Nov 2022, 2:03 am
It could not be classified in a precise category under A1P1 and the Court would therefore examine it in the light of the general standards of that Article [49]. [read post]
17 Sep 2014, 11:37 am
In Davis v. [read post]
9 Jul 2009, 8:17 pm
The California Supreme Court has ruled that breath tests don't always mean someone is intoxicated even if the result is above the legal limit of .08, People v. [read post]
1 Mar 2010, 4:47 am
A similar example occurred in Detox Environmental Ltd. v. [read post]
9 Jun 2011, 11:33 am
The Supreme Court endorsed this user empowerment tools approach in Reno v. [read post]
31 Mar 2012, 10:17 am
Others, such as the Kentucky State Police, said they use varying legal standards, such as a warrant or a less-strict subpoena. [read post]
2 Feb 2014, 9:40 am
” Amgen, Inc. v. [read post]
6 May 2011, 11:51 am
The case is Manzo v. [read post]
23 Nov 2015, 6:24 am
Performance standards. [read post]
31 May 2023, 10:58 am
It is therefore essential that the evidence base be specified more precisely. [read post]
15 Dec 2015, 9:01 pm
Supreme Court watchers could be forgiven if last week’s oral argument in Fisher v. [read post]
23 Aug 2011, 4:30 am
As Ramirez v. [read post]
27 Oct 2010, 1:37 pm
We confess that we read McAdams v. [read post]
20 Dec 2022, 11:05 am
[District court's opinion in Gruber v. [read post]
28 Aug 2008, 5:36 pm
What's worse, it's on an ad hoc, extra-regulatory basis - a tort suit - precisely the sort of thing that will encourage everyone else in a similar situation to start trying to build their own cases.Our practical concerns, it appears, weren't just the crocodile tears of big pharma lawyers after all.The opinion, Gunvalson v. [read post]
17 Sep 2010, 8:20 pm
(Kenneth Anderson) I’ve now had a chance to read a little more closely the decision, majority and concurrence, in Kiobel v. [read post]
5 Jan 2015, 6:18 am
Yet that is precisely what would result were Halperin allowed to aggregate his claim with those [read post]
21 Jan 2015, 6:37 am
On December 12, 2012, the district court issued a TRO directing Kattler to `produce to Waste Management images of all electronic devices used by Kattler . . . except for the electronic devices used and/or owned by Kattler at Emerald,’ and to `produce to a third-party forensics expert, to be agreed upon by the Parties, images of all electronic devices used by Kattler . . . at Emerald. [read post]
