Day on Torts
OCTOBER 3, 2022
Defendant filed a petition for dismissal pursuant to the TPPA, and after finding that the TPPA applied, that plaintiff was a limited-purpose public figure in the context of this action, and that plaintiff “had not established a prima facie case for actual malice,” the trial court dismissed the case. The TPPA, Tenn.
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. Cautioning against: “references to ‘common sense’ without any support.”
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
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. Those actions included: Supreme Court will hear Prop. 22 challenge.
Day on Torts
NOVEMBER 15, 2022
Second, if the court determines that the petitioning party has met such requirements of the statute, the court shall dismiss the legal action unless the responding party establishes a prima facie case for each essential element of the claim in the legal action or if the petitioning party establishes a valid defense to the claims in the legal action.”
Patently O
NOVEMBER 29, 2023
Vidal , No 23-135 This case involves a challenge to a PTO rule, known as the “ Fintiv rule,” that sets restrictive standards governing when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) will deny institution of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.
At the Lectern
AUGUST 11, 2022
When it requested an answer to the petition for review, the Supreme Court said, “In particular, be sure to address petitioner’s contention the Court of Appeal erred in summarily denying habeas relief because it misapplied the standard for establishing a prima facie case for relief” and it cited People v. Romero (1994) 8 Cal.4th
Patently O
FEBRUARY 25, 2021
The CFC agreed with Bitmanagement that it “had established a prima facie case of copyright infringement.” Regarding damages, the court also provided some guidance to the lower court: Because Bitmanagement’s action is against the government, it is entitled only to “reasonable and entire compensation as damages.,
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
59 
Let's personalize your content