Search for: "Fields v. A & B Electronics"
Results 1 - 20
of 386
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Nov 2013, 8:24 am
Like a drop of water, an e-record is dependent upon its ERMS (its “pool”) for its: (a) existence; (b) accessibility; and, (c) its integrity. [read post]
9 May 2007, 6:00 am
An excerpt: Based on the rapid appearance of conflicting analyses, the Supreme Court decision in Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc. v. [read post]
11 May 2011, 3:59 am
Quattrone v NYS Department of Education, 37 A.D.3d 939 Elizabeth G. [read post]
12 Feb 2015, 4:00 am
That is the fundamental nature of an electronic record—it is dependent for everything on its electronic records system. [read post]
28 May 2015, 4:00 am
Electronic discovery is not used to test the quality of ERMS’s. [read post]
30 Mar 2022, 9:52 am
By virtue of OBG Ltd v Allan [2007] UKHL 21 and Your Response Ltd v Datateam Business Media Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 281, a trade document in electronic form is intangible and, therefore, not possessable and capable of functioning as a paper trade document. [read post]
15 Oct 2020, 5:08 pm
On and after July 1, 2015, regardless of the date a judgment was signed, the date of the judgment is the date that the clerk enters the judgment on the electronic case management system docket in accordance with section (b) of this Rule. [read post]
29 Oct 2018, 9:01 pm
To erase any doubt with respect to contracts, ORC §1306.06 (B) provides: “A contract may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because an electronic record was used in its formation. [read post]
30 Jul 2019, 9:22 am
By Jason Rantanen Solutran, Inc. v. [read post]
29 Oct 2018, 9:01 pm
To erase any doubt with respect to contracts, ORC §1306.06 (B) provides: “A contract may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because an electronic record was used in its formation. [read post]
3 May 2016, 7:02 am
§ 101 as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter, the PTAB analyzed the claim utilizing the Mayo framework set forth in Alice v. [read post]
3 May 2016, 7:02 am
§ 101 as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter, the PTAB analyzed the claim utilizing the Mayo framework set forth in Alice v. [read post]
29 Dec 2016, 4:02 am
Cancellation No. 92055674 [Petition for cancellation of a registration for the mark PATRIOT RISK & INSURANCE SERVICES & Design (below) for "Insurance agency and brokerage; Insurance services in the nature of loss control management for others," in view of the registered mark PATRIOT RISK SERVICES for "insurance services, namely, insurance agency services, insurance writing and underwriting, insurance brokerage, and insurance consultation services, all in the fields of… [read post]
3 Oct 2016, 7:30 am
Federal District Court Judge Anita B. [read post]
17 Apr 2014, 4:00 am
(b) Inadvertent Disclosure. [read post]
11 Jun 2021, 7:37 am
Case in point: Yu v. [read post]
11 May 2007, 6:10 am
Nor does Leapfrog present any evidence that the inclusion of a device commonly used in the field of electronics (a reader), and even in the narrower art of electronic children's toys, represented an unobvious step over the prior art. [read post]
17 Jan 2017, 4:41 pm
On 30 November 2016, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) heard oral arguments in Bărbulescu v. [read post]
14 Apr 2017, 7:29 am
Prentis B. [read post]
11 Jun 2012, 7:00 am
Teleflex Patent from KSR v Teleflex In KSR v. [read post]
