Search for: "In Re Application of US for an Order"
Results 81 - 100
of 15,043
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Feb 2015, 12:23 pm
But without access to FISA applications and orders, defendants are unable to determine precisely which surveillance authorities were used against them, let alone whether those authorities were lawfully used. [read post]
12 May 2022, 6:32 pm
“[When an] order is ambiguous (as orders striking motions generally are), it is subject to the applicable rules of construction. [read post]
2 Jul 2008, 10:00 am
Distinguishing In re Valenite Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1346 (TTAB 2007), the Board found Applicant U.S. [read post]
10 Nov 2021, 4:29 am
There, the applicant used "JHS" or “J. [read post]
12 May 2020, 1:59 pm
Presuming Amenities can be opened because of the absence of applicable stay-at-home orders, the next question becomes: Is opening the Amenities the right decision for your community at this time? [read post]
8 Dec 2020, 3:25 am
Although Applicant’s stylized alphanumeric term is prominently featured on these specimens, they lack critical information such as pricing, minimum quantities that can be ordered, accepted methods of payment, shipping information, and direct ordering information. [read post]
14 Jun 2022, 8:07 am
The post Harassment Restraining Orders and Res Judicata appeared first on Reason.com. [read post]
13 Sep 2010, 5:54 pm
” The problem, of course, is that lawyers, shopping around in conference exhibit halls filled with IT products, have no idea what they’re looking for, because they don’t understand what’s there. [read post]
8 Aug 2017, 4:43 pm
Plaintiffs haven’t asked US courts to do that, and I doubt they’re likely to. [read post]
7 May 2017, 4:28 am
26th March 2014Claim CC13P00980 Dear Mr Perry, I have re-considered the case CC13P00980 and upon reflection; your opponents (FH Brundle, Betafence and Britannia Fasteners) having used your name on purchase orders for the infringing goods protected under your patent (which seems to be a fundamental point in the case), have colluded to defraud you of substantial sums of profits you were rightfully entitled to and therefore I have reversed my decision in your… [read post]
8 Aug 2018, 5:45 pm
Effective August 7, 2018, the Executive Order re-imposed sanctions for items that had been subject to a 90-day wind-down period following May 8. [read post]
19 Jun 2013, 7:16 pm
The rejection of claims in US 7,457,446 in re-examination 95/000,518 [ HAMAMATSU PHOTONICS K.K. v Aperio ] is affirmed.As to written description:To satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure mustreasonably convey to skilled artisans that Appellant possessed the claimedinvention as of the filing date. [read post]
31 Jan 2022, 4:02 am
See JJ206, 120 USPQ2d at 1569; In re Stanley Bros. [read post]
16 Oct 2017, 12:24 am
The post Why use the High Court for enforcing a possession order? [read post]
10 Nov 2015, 6:31 am
In the short term, President Obama issued executive orders that will eliminate the question from applications for many federal positions. [read post]
27 Apr 2015, 6:20 am
In re Application for an Order Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. [read post]
20 Oct 2011, 3:00 am
The PTO refused registration of the mark ORGANIZED GOES BEYOND ORDINARY for "plastic storage containers for household or domestic use" on the ground that Applicant failed to provide an acceptable specimen of use. [read post]
28 Feb 2023, 8:35 am
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you would like further information. [read post]
11 Apr 2016, 10:03 am
Pursuant to an order denying leave to appeal in In re Jackson (Docket No. 152404), the Supreme Court instructed that, based on In re JK, 468 Mich 202 (2003), any trial court finalizing an adoption must include the following on the record:“I have determined that any appeal of the decision to terminate parental rights has reached disposition, that no appeal, application for leave to appeal, or motion for rehearing or reconsideration is pending,… [read post]
13 Apr 2016, 10:16 am
[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Court [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] Tuesday that the district court must review Wisconsin's voter ID law to determine whether broad application constitutes an equal protection violation. [read post]
