Search for: "Does 1-5" Results 101 - 120 of 43,262
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Feb 2015, 2:12 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
A cell line not so derived does not fall within the literal scope of claim 1. [read post]
18 Jan 2007, 8:08 am
5- Does he or she reside with your ex-spouse? [read post]
30 Jul 2014, 7:10 am by Docket Navigator
.' Indeed, defendant has: (1) identified the [patent-in-suit]; (2) asserted he is the owner of the [patent]; (3) identified plaintiff’s competing product . . . (4) asserted that plaintiff’s 'design' . . . is 'a copy of the [product covered by the patent]'; and (5) sued others in the past for purportedly infringing on his [patent]. . . . [read post]
3 Nov 2011, 9:00 pm
In January, Illinois legislators approved raising their individual income tax rate from 3% to 5%, and raised the corporate income tax rate from 7.3% to 9.5%, retroactive to January 1. [read post]
It is relevant for those of us practicing Social Security disability law in the Region 1 (the New England states), because we have a 5-day rule for new evidence. [read post]
20 May 2015, 8:18 am by Cadwalader
On May 1, 2015, FERC issued an order assessing civil penalties (the “Order”) of $5 million against Maxim Power Corporation and its named subsidiaries (“Maxim”), as well as $50,000 against Maxim Energy Marketing Analyst, Kyle Mitton (together, the “Respondents”), for violating the Commission’s Anti-Manipulation and Market Behavior rules. [read post]
17 Jul 2010, 7:50 am by ggvp
Under Louisiana law, there are seven categories under which a spouse may claim loss of consortium:   (1) loss of love and affection, (2) loss of society and companionship, (3) impairment of sexual relations, (4) loss of performance of material services, (5) loss of financial support, (6) loss of aid and assistance, and (7) loss of fidelity. [read post]
7 Jan 2013, 7:22 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).Although the appellants lost on claim 1, they prevailed on claim 2:We find no mention in the passages cited by the Examiner (col. 16, l. 10–col. 17, l. 5) of the distal end of the Campbell balloon being utilized as an orientation marker, and the Examiner does not cogently explain how these passages are relevant. [read post]
8 Oct 2008, 4:56 am
Patent No. 5,236,940 does not qualify as an enabling prior art reference, and therefore, does not anticipate claims 1-5 of U.S. [read post]
14 Oct 2009, 9:00 am
If a plan is 5×5, the only way to advance to the next level is to fill the first level by recruiting 5 active distributors. [read post]