Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Supreme Court issued its decision on May 11, 2023. In a 5–4 ruling, the court upheld the lower court ruling in dismissing the lawsuit and ruling Proposition 12 was legal. [4] The majority opinion was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Barrett. [1]
This is a list of decisions and opinions of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) in chronological order of their date of issuance. The list includes decisions under Article 112(1)(a) EPC (following a referral from a Board of Appeal), opinions under Article 112(1)(b) EPC (following a referral from the President of the EPO), "to ensure uniform application of the law ...
The referral relating the patentability of programs for computers was dismissed as inadmissible by the Enlarged Board of Appeal. The Enlarged Board considered that there was only a development in the case law, rather than a divergence in decisions given by the Boards of Appeal on the question of patentability of computer-implemented inventions ...
R 7/09 [5] was a petition for review of T 27/07 [6] and is the very first case in which a petition for review was successful since the institution of the procedure. In that case, the Enlarged Board of Appeal held that a violation of the right to be heard (a right guaranteed by Article 113(1) EPC) occurred during the underlying appeal proceedings, because the Board of Appeal apparently failed ...
Sheetz v. County of El Dorado (Docket No. 22-1074) is a United States Supreme Court case regarding permit exactions under the Takings Clause.The Supreme Court held, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, that fees for land-use permits must be closely related and roughly proportional to the effects of the land use – the test established by Nollan v.
A California appeals court reversed most of a ruling invalidating Proposition 22, the state's 2020 voter-approved gig economy law allowing giant ride-hailing and delivery companies to classify ...
That case is on final judgement out of the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court could consider at their Dec. 13 conference whether to take the case.. Show comments
Dynamex then petitioned for review of the Court of Appeal’s decision with the California Supreme Court. [34] Dynamex argued that the Superior Court had erred because the definitions of employment offered by Martinez were only applicable to the determination of whether an entity is a joint employer of the workers in question. [35]