Search for: "Ex parte B. A. F."
Results 1 - 20
of 1,354
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Dec 2012, 8:03 am
Ex parte Moncla, 95 USPQ2d 1884, 1885 (BPAI 2010). [read post]
19 Nov 2022, 11:57 am
Continue reading → The post MIAMI NON-COMPETE AGREEMENTS: EX PARTE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER appeared first on Florida Business Litigation Lawyer Blog. [read post]
3 Aug 2016, 11:02 am
§ 29-26-121(f) “allows for the disclosure of protected health care information in ex parte interviews conducted during judicial proceedings,” provided certain conditions are met. [read post]
10 Jan 2014, 8:18 am
From Ex parte FITZPATRICK In a non-precedential decision, our reviewing court reminded us of the 2 applicability of the precedential In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381 (Fed. [read post]
11 Jun 2013, 7:05 pm
The appellant lost in Ex parte WeinerKSR is mentioned:“The combination of familiar elements according to known methodsis likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. [read post]
20 Aug 2010, 3:10 am
Estoppel of 35 USC § 317(b) Applies Only to Inter Partes Patent Reexamination One of the risks often associated with ex parte patent reexamination is that an outcome favorable to a patent holder is considered to “gold plate” a patent that is later asserted against the requester in district court, especially with respect to the same or similar art. [read post]
17 Apr 2013, 6:12 am
Ex parte Taylor Of a rejection for lack of written description, the appellant prevailed: We agree with Appellants. [read post]
19 Jun 2013, 7:40 pm
§ 41.50(b). [read post]
25 Jul 2013, 10:37 am
§ 1.111(b); In re Chevenard, 139 F.2d 711, 713 (CCPA 1943). [read post]
16 Jun 2012, 1:59 pm
Consideration of ex parte information in a disciplinary action constitutes a denial of due process Faga v Board of Educ. of Harrison Cent. [read post]
9 Aug 2013, 1:10 pm
In re Jung is cited against the examiner in Ex parte Harris:The Examiner rejected claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
11 Oct 2013, 6:34 am
Pursuant to Rule 4.4(b), there is no blanket prohibition against ex parte communications with “third persons,” which specifically includes former employees as noted in Comment 6 of Rule 4.2 and Comment 2 of Rule 4.4; see also, e.g., Chang-Williams v. [read post]
23 Apr 2013, 8:47 am
From within Ex parte BOOMERSHINEAs to 101:The Examiner approach in determining whether the claimed subjectmatter is patentable subject matter is piecemeal. [read post]
13 Feb 2013, 6:07 am
MPEP 804(B)(1). [read post]
18 Jan 2013, 6:23 am
Ex parte Dacosta includes references cases which might lead one not to include prior art in a background section.HOWEVER, 102(b) prior art is usually readily identifiable, and admitting the obvious is not such a big deal. [read post]
4 May 2011, 8:05 pm
F. [read post]
6 Mar 2015, 8:50 am
Code Ann. 29-26-121(f): From my reading, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 29-26-121(f)(1)(B) only allows a court to limit or prohibit an ex parte interview with a treating physician based upon a finding that the physician can offer no evidence relevant to the litigation. [read post]
19 Mar 2013, 7:36 am
Within Ex parte Furst, the appellant successfully argues "missing claim elements":Appellant acknowledges that Hossainy “discloses a stent that could include two different biological agents. [read post]
20 Nov 2013, 9:35 pm
MonoSol RX, LLC, IPR2013-00315 (PTAB) by Robert F. [read post]
5 Mar 2015, 10:00 pm
Code Ann. 29-26-121(f): From my reading, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 29-26-121(f)(1)(B) only allows a court to limit or prohibit an ex parte interview with a treating physician based upon a finding that the physician can offer no evidence relevant to the litigation. [read post]
