Search for: "DOES 1-98 "
Results 61 - 80
of 2,149
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Aug 2008, 2:00 pm
The opinion digest states: 1) A lawyer must inform the client of a fee-waiver settlement offer and consummate the settlement in accordance with the client's wishes even if it reduces the likelihood of recovering some or all of his or her fees. 2) A lawyer does not violate any ethical obligation by recommending or conveying a fee-waiver settlement offer in a given case. 3) A lawyer does not violate any ethical obligation by recommending or conveying fee-waiver… [read post]
18 Dec 2016, 11:51 pm
Directive 98/44/EC does not distinguish between different layers of provisions, and its provisions should be interpreted together in their entirety. [read post]
31 May 2010, 3:02 pm
Only in cases where the representative is working in a small unit or firm, a system without such cross-check mechanism may be satisfactory for A 122(1) (e.g., decision T 428/98 [3.5]). [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 9:12 am
It is also necessary that the claim does not fall under the exclusion of plant varieties that is also in Article 53(b) (first part of clause), but according to decision G1/98:A claim wherein specific plant varieties are not individually claimed is not excluded from patentability under Article 53(b), EPC even though it may embrace plant varieties.Thus, only a claim to a single plant variety is excluded under Art 53(b) (first part of clause), which was not the case in either of the… [read post]
27 Sep 2017, 12:52 pm
(Count 1); substantive child sex trafficking of E.P. [read post]
26 May 2015, 2:00 pm
Koenderman, JCC -------- Notes: 1. [read post]
16 Sep 2020, 6:15 am
Spence, 129 S.W.3d 701, 704 n.1 (Tex. [read post]
6 Jan 2015, 8:46 am
(b) Is the repair clause set out in Article 14 of Directive 98/71 and Article 110 of Regulation ... 6/2002 to be interpreted as constituting a subjective right for third-party producers of replacement parts and accessories and, if so, does that subjective right include the right for such third parties to use the trade mark registered by another party in respect of replacement parts and accessories, by way of derogation from the rules laid down in Regulation ... 207/2009 and… [read post]
28 May 2013, 5:01 pm
In this revocation appeal Board 3.2.02 inter alia examined claim 1 of the fourth auxiliary request as to its compliance with A 53(c). [read post]
12 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
" The court then opined that assuming, arguendo, that the general rule requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply where the issue raised involves a pure question of law, this case does not present a pure question of law, noting that the relevant Department of Education regulation states that, "[i]n the event of the failure of a school district to fulfill the financial obligation required by section § 2856 [1] [b] of the Education Law… [read post]
12 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
" The court then opined that assuming, arguendo, that the general rule requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply where the issue raised involves a pure question of law, this case does not present a pure question of law, noting that the relevant Department of Education regulation states that, "[i]n the event of the failure of a school district to fulfill the financial obligation required by section § 2856 [1] [b] of the Education Law… [read post]
30 Jan 2010, 11:03 am
[…] Although the subject-matter of claim 1 of the contested patent is identical with the one that the board held as involving an inventive step in T 891/98, the documents and arguments on which the parties relied upon in opposition are different from those on which T 891/98 was based. [read post]
21 Dec 2012, 2:19 am
The Copyright Act 98 of 1978 grants a copyright owner of an artistic work the exclusive right to reproduce, or authorise the reproduction of the work in any manner or form (s7(a)). [read post]
4 Nov 2013, 6:32 am
Harleysville, No. 98 MAP 2012 (Pa. [read post]
6 Aug 2013, 9:45 am
From July 1, 2012, to June 30, 2013, the court split 4-3 in seven cases, compared with only one in the previous twelve months. [read post]
10 Dec 2013, 8:00 am
Ernst & Young LLP, 726 F.3d 290, 297-98 n.8 (2d Cir. 2013); Owen v. [read post]
26 Jul 2017, 4:16 am
The EPC Implementing Regulations were amended to include its main provisions and it is used as a supplementary means of interpretation (see Rule 26(1) EPC). [read post]
18 Jan 2019, 4:42 am
Only a purity of 97.91% could be obtained.- Consequently, D2/D3 did not anticipate the subject-matter of claim 1 at issue.- The procedure described in example 16 of D1 led to amorphous LH having a purity of 97.91%, i.e. outside the range specified in claim 1 at issue.- The rationale developed in T 990/96 and T 728/98 was in conflict with the principle that for concluding lack of novelty, there must be a direct and unambiguous disclosure.- The purity level specified in… [read post]
8 Oct 2013, 5:01 pm
”[1.8] This rule was applied in T 97/98 to correct a notice of appeal in circumstances very similar to those in the present case. [read post]
7 Nov 2016, 2:31 am
In an atmosphere where dissenting voices have been silenced, and only the foolhardy or very brave would risk their careers by speaking up for the 98% who have lost any confidence in Mr Battistelli, the Social Conference will be hailed as a resounding example of constructive, open dialogue. [read post]
