Search for: "Doe II v. Doe I" Results 21 - 40 of 12,229
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Jun 2024, 8:58 am by Telecommunications Practice Group
This could be done by providing evidence that the practice: (i) does not materially degrade or threaten to materially degrade the BIAS of the general public; (ii) does not hinder consumer choice; (iii) does not impair competition, innovation, consumer demands, or investment; and (iv) does not impede any forms of expression, types of service, or points of view. [read post]
31 May 2024, 12:30 pm by John Ross
Does "landscaping" include installing an in-ground trampoline? [read post]
31 May 2024, 5:55 am by Yousuf Syed Khan
Notably, the Prosecutor’s statement itself does not mention belligerent occupation. [read post]
30 May 2024, 3:45 pm by Maribeth Meluch
However, she began facing incessant criticism and harassment starting the same week she was (i) diagnosed with breast cancer and (ii) assigned a new supervisor. [read post]
24 May 2024, 6:40 pm by Adil Ahmad Haque
The order is most naturally read to mean that Israel must immediately halt (i) its military offensive in the Rafah Governorate, and (ii) any other action in the Rafah Governorate which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. [read post]
24 May 2024, 4:00 am by Melanie Hodges Neufeld
So much so that I was surprised to learn the that the legal industry was still ranked third in a study on industries with the most confusing jargon[ii]. [read post]
22 May 2024, 1:15 am by Charlie French (Bristows)
In relation to (i) and (ii), Nicoventures submitted that the arguments and evidence presented at the UPC might influence both the outcome and the scheduling of the EPO proceedings. [read post]
21 May 2024, 5:55 am by itars sis
Nevertheless, the AI Office’s role does not imply to verify or proceed to “a work-by-work assessment of the training data in terms of copyright compliance. [read post]
21 May 2024, 2:45 am by Rebecca Daramola (Bristows)
In resisting the application for a preliminary injunction, Hanshow argued that  (i) claim features 1.1, 7 and 8.4 were not realised in the contested products, (ii) SES had not proved that Hanshow had offered or marketed these products, and (iii) EP 277 was invalid on the basis of obviousness and lack of novelty. [read post]