Search for: "Does 1 - 35"
Results 101 - 120
of 9,710
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Feb 2008, 7:00 pm
The judge reasoned that § 3553(a) is mandatory, without providing any exception for resentencings under Rule 35(b); the plain wording of Rule 35(b)(1) does not preclude considering other factors; the advisory committee notes to Rule 35(b)(1) support the conclusion; in applying Rule 35(b)(1), courts are to look for guidance to cases applying 5K1.1, which, as noted above, in this circuit apply all … [read post]
4 May 2016, 6:59 am
Pegasystems Inc., 1-13-cv-00581 (DED May 2, 2016, Order) (Robinson, J.) [read post]
24 Feb 2010, 6:40 am
§ 112, paragraph 1 . . . does not contain a written description requirement separate from an enablement requirement. [read post]
21 Sep 2016, 12:28 pm
Portugal does not have the equivalent of a Coast Guard like the U.S. [read post]
22 Feb 2017, 9:33 am
” The case interprets the patent infringement statute 35 U.S.C. [read post]
22 Feb 2017, 9:33 am
” The case interprets the patent infringement statute 35 U.S.C. [read post]
2 Dec 2009, 5:11 pm
Eli Lilly is about to ponder two questions: (1) is there a separate and distinct “written description†requirement in the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. [read post]
13 Dec 2022, 8:00 am
"Migrants’ Protection and Assistance in the Face of a Changing World: Taking Stock of the Challenges and Responses," Chapter 14 in Does the UN Model Still Work? [read post]
3 Jan 2011, 6:58 am
Does StickCo have a credible argument under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
13 Mar 2009, 6:41 am
In a nutshell, ARRA entitles employees involuntarily terminated between September 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009 to continue health care coverage through COBRA by paying only 35 percent of their premiums for up to nine months. [read post]
27 Mar 2024, 4:46 pm
Introduction to the § 271(e)(1) Safe Harbor The safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. [read post]
7 Feb 2022, 9:38 am
Importantly, however, the Order does not require construction companies to unionize, it only binds a federal construction contractor’s employees to the terms of a PLA. [read post]
14 Dec 2013, 9:00 pm
§ 1337(a)(1)(B)(i) may not be predicated on a theory of induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
28 Jul 2007, 10:08 pm
Of the possible extension of 35 USC 271(e)(1) to research tool patents, the majority in the July 2007 CAFC decision in Merck v. [read post]
5 Dec 2017, 1:54 pm
Utah Labor Commission (Utah, December 1, 2017) (affirming denial of temporary total disability: Utah Code § 35-1-65 does not abrogate any previously existing remedy, since the legislature created an adequate substitute remedy in workers' compensation; it is therefore no violation of the Open Courts Clause)Waite v. [read post]
28 Feb 2023, 2:38 pm
’764 Patent col. 1 ll. 12–42. [read post]
11 Jul 2011, 10:22 pm
If the President were really sincere about reform and a willingness to keep the top tax rate at or below 35%, he'd negotiate that at the same time he does a debt deal. [read post]
4 Jan 2010, 7:41 am
Bell, Jr.706-259-2586 Disclaimer: While this article does contain some facts, it is mainly my opinion. [read post]
7 Oct 2013, 6:02 am
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
1 Mar 2010, 2:14 pm
The Examiner rejected the Verizon claim under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
