Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
This decision was then appealed, and the California Court of Appeal in May of 2022 upheld that bumblebees (and all other invertebrates) are protected under the CESA, because (1) the statute has since 1984 explicitly listed invertebrates under the law's definition of fish ("a wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate, amphibian, or part ...
“The court’s decision allows California to protect some of its most endangered pollinators." Skip to main content. Sign in. Mail. 24/7 Help. For premium support please call: ...
The March 15 ruling by Sacramento Superior Court Judge Stephen Acquisto rejected a litany of lawsuits by water districts against the State Water Resources Control Board’s plan to boost river ...
Superior Court (Supreme Court of California, 1983, 33 Cal.3d 419) was a key case in California highlighting the conflict between the public trust doctrine and appropriative water rights. [1] The Public Trust Doctrine is based on the principle that certain resources (such as navigable waters) are too valuable to be privately owned and must ...
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 ...
In the meantime, a special edition of the EPO Official Journal is issued each year summarizing the most recent case law of the boards of appeal. [ 4 ] Sir Robin Jacob , a former British judge specialized in intellectual property law, considered, in 2011, the book nothing short of "a very very good book (...) a super book", carrying on saying ...
The California Constitution originally made the Supreme Court the only appellate court for the whole state. As the state's population skyrocketed during the 19th century, the Supreme Court was expanded from three to seven justices, and then the Court began hearing the majority of appeals in three-justice panels.
March 19, 1986, T 51/84 (Coded distinctive mark/Stockburger). [2] The Board held that if a claim focuses solely on procedural steps involved in applying a coded distinctive mark to an object without indicating or presupposing technical means for carrying them out, a process of this kind is excluded from patentability by Article 52(2)(c) and (3) EPC.