Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
It has been urged that novelty is an appropriate consideration under § 101. Presumably, this argument results from the language in § 101 referring to any “new and useful” process, machine, etc. Section 101, however, is a general statement of the type of subject matter that is eligible for patent protection “subject to the conditions and ...
Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), [1] is a 2016 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in which the court, for the second time since the United States Supreme Court decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank upheld the patent–eligibility of software patent claims. [2]
Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court and Charles Lee, Real Party in Interest, 4 Cal.5th 903 (Cal. 2018) was a landmark case handed down by the California Supreme Court on April 30, 2018. A class of drivers for a same-day delivery company, Dynamex, claimed that they were misclassified as independent contractors and thus unlawfully deprived of ...
DFEH chief counsel Janette Wipper and her deputy Melanie Proctor both stood down from the case early in April 2022 for undisclosed reasons; Wipper was later fired as chief counsel by California Governor Gavin Newsom. Proctor resigned on April 12, 2022, in protest to Wipper's firing.
JSerra baseball along with Garden Grove Pacifica and Norco softball decline invites to Southern California regional playoffs. Three finalists in Southern Section Division 1 baseball and softball ...
The California Supreme Court, aware of the recent trend toward comparative rather than contributory negligence, took the opportunity to reconsider the state's tort law on the subject. The only unique feature of the case was its reasoning on Section 1714 of the Civil Code , which had been thought to codify the "all-or-nothing" approach to ...
A 20-minute delay for a rulebook check did not stop Case softball from advancing to finals. Gannett. Steven Sanchez, The Herald News. June 13, 2024 at 2:27 AM.
In 2002, the California Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) started the Second-Generation Electronic Filing Specification (2GEFS) project. [5]After a $200,000 consultant's report declared the project ready for a final push, the Judicial Council of California scrapped the program in 2012 after $500 million in costs.