Patently O
FEBRUARY 27, 2024
Still, the guidelines spend some time on the requirements of a prima facie case; the necessity of both evidence and reasoning to support any obviousness rejection; and consideration of all evidence before the examiner. However, it is evident that the term is no longer understood in a rigid or formalistic way. Qualcomm Inc.,
At the Lectern
JUNE 29, 2023
Resentencing prima facie case. Reyes , one of many cases concerning possible resentencing under Senate Bill 1437 (more about today’s Reyes decision later [ update : here ]), the court agreed to take on yet another SB 1437 case, People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 22 challenge. COVID insurance.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Day on Torts
JUNE 30, 2021
When defendant filed a petition to dismiss a defamation case under the Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA), and plaintiff failed to respond by “establish[ing] a prima facie case for each essential element of the claim in the legal action,” dismissal was affirmed. In Nandigam Neurology, PLC v. Beavers , No.
At the Lectern
SEPTEMBER 20, 2021
Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 5th 952, 961-970, regarding petitioners’ right to counsel and the standard for determining the existence of a prima facie case” and that it “[a]ddresses what evidence a court may consider at a resentencing hearing (clarifying the discussion in People v.
Patently O
MARCH 31, 2024
2021) (summary judgment). This evidence “called for an instruction, if properly requested, on the objective indicia to which the evidence pertains, so that the jury could assess its weight as objective indicia and—where the jury was asked for the bottom-line answer on obviousness—in relation to the prima facie case.”
Day on Torts
JANUARY 11, 2022
28, 2021), plaintiff filed this pro se legal malpractice claim against defendant on December 20, 2019. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the BPR decisions on the matter “were res judicata and Plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of legal malpractice.” In Jones v. Marshall , No.
Patently O
MARCH 29, 2021
On appeal, though, the Federal Circuit found that the USPTO had presented a prima facie case by noting that the invention: “violates the first law of thermodynamics,” is “contrary to traditional understanding of chemistry,” and “violates the classical laws of physics” including conservation of mass. In re Hu ( Fed.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
121 
Let's personalize your content