Search for: "Does 1 - 371"
Results 101 - 120
of 583
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Feb 2013, 12:07 am
How far does the definition reach? [read post]
20 Mar 2013, 10:12 pm
Timbers of InwoodForest Assocs., 484 U.S. 365, 371 (1988); see also Sale v.Haitian Ctrs. [read post]
4 May 2012, 5:43 am
& C.3d 371 (1987). [read post]
27 Oct 2011, 12:42 pm
Sec. 371 3. [read post]
5 Aug 2008, 2:47 pm
Neiman, 1 F.3d 687, 689–91 (8th Cir. 1993), and section 1327(b) does not address assets acquired after confirmation. [read post]
13 Nov 2009, 11:48 am
Note: do not use the §371(c) compliance date for bypass applications. [read post]
7 Dec 2018, 12:58 am
It should be noted, however, that Novartis obtained a centralized marketing authorization for the same valsartan/amlodipine combination not only under the proprietary name Exforge® (EU/1/06/370/001-024) but also under the proprietary names Dafiro® (EU/1/06/371/001-024), Copalia® (EU/1/06/372/001-024) and Imprida® (EU/1/06/373/001-024). [read post]
1 Mar 2010, 5:34 pm
Here is post #1: The Context of the Good-Faith Exception. [read post]
5 Aug 2021, 2:57 am
The violation of the procedural ordre public as ground for non recognition and enforcement of such decisions, under the Articles 34 (1) and 45 (1) of the EU Regulation 44/2001 (Brussels I Regulation). [read post]
4 Dec 2023, 7:16 am
United States, 289 U.S. 1 (1933). [read post]
18 Jun 2015, 10:02 pm
” He says the indictment does not charge any theft occurred. [read post]
16 Feb 2014, 12:52 pm
Keffeler, 537 U.S. 371, 385 (2003) and Cannon v. [read post]
27 Jan 2008, 11:41 pm
The PCT application (with a priority claim to a U.S. application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a)) is filed with the USPTO (See Case 1) or the PCT application has been filed directly (without a priority claim) with the USPTO (See Case 2).The PCT application has not entered the national phase in the JPO.A first action on the merits by the USPTO(i) for the U.S. application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) is/will be completed within 26 months from the filing date of that U.S. application (from which… [read post]
27 Aug 2012, 2:00 am
According to Rule 74.04(1)(f) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a renunciation form, (Form 74.11) must be completed and filed with the court. [read post]
27 Aug 2012, 2:00 am
According to Rule 74.04(1)(f) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a renunciation form, (Form 74.11) must be completed and filed with the court. [read post]
1 Aug 2023, 8:04 pm
§ 371; b. [read post]
30 Nov 2015, 4:00 am
The directive, said the court, “does no such thing. [read post]
18 Sep 2019, 2:05 am
In contrast, the USPTO pointed out that a declaration of interference does not close prosecution, which always may resume after the interference is decided. [read post]
27 Oct 2019, 8:23 am
Canada’s First Reverse Class Action Copyright Case | Guest Post: UK IPO Annual IP crime and enforcement report for 2018-2019 | There is No Such Thing as a Free Launch - CJEU Does Not Follow AG on Compensation for Wrongful PI | New CJEU referral on right of communication to the public... this time on seeding and de minimis threshold | [Guest Post] IP Education Series #1 | AIPPI Congress Report 4: Copyright in AI generated works | AG Pitruzzella advises CJEU to rule that… [read post]
11 Apr 2019, 12:32 pm
This led the GC to state that Mr Esteban had not acted in bad faith.AG Kokott recalled that the ground for invalidity in Article 52 (1)(b) does not require that the applicant is the proprietor of a trade mark for identical or similar goods or services: anyone may, in principle, apply for a declaration of invalidity of a trade mark on ground of bad faith. [read post]
