Search for: "Doe Entities 1-200" Results 1 - 20 of 736
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Nov 2008, 12:24 pm
The OPC is required to have only one director on its board.Relevant clauses in the Bill: 3(1), 5(1)(a), 13(1), 85(1), 120(1), 132(1)(a), 171, 421Small Company The Bill defines a small company as a company, other than a public company, whose (i) paid-up share capital does not exceed a prescribed amount that shall not be more than Rs. 5 crores (Rs. 50 million), or (ii) turnover does not exceed a prescribed amount that shall be no… [read post]
17 Mar 2014, 6:10 am
Freedom of Information Commission (Administrative agencies; Freedom of Information Act (§ 1-200 et seq.); "Congress created the National Practitioner Data Bank (Practitioner Data Bank) and the Healthcare Integrity and Protection Data Bank (Healthcare Data Bank) as national clearinghouses for, inter alia, information from health care entities and licensing boards regarding adverse actions taken against physicians and other licensed health care practitioners. [read post]
13 Mar 2017, 1:39 am by Simon Holzer
The plaintiff claimed that EP 1 200 092 does not have a valid priority and, therefore, lacks novelty in light of the international application WO 01/08686. [read post]
13 Oct 2015, 4:29 pm by Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law
(c) In computing the one-year period under subdivision (b), the following shall apply: (1) The time during which the person who sustained the alleged injury, damage, or loss as a minor shall be counted, but the time during which he or she is mentally incapacitated and does not have a guardian or conservator of his or her person shall not be counted. (2) The time shall not be counted during which the person is detained or adjudged to be a dependent child of the juvenile court under… [read post]
5 Jun 2023, 4:56 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
Ezrasons, Inc. v Rudd (___ AD3d ___, 2023 NY Slip Op 02936 [1st Dept June 1, 2023]), involved a publicly-traded company, but the decision is of interest to any business divorce practitioner who represents entities incorporated outside of New York. [read post]
28 Jan 2014, 6:00 am by The Dear Rich Staff
Both of the scenarios you discuss are infringements and more importantly, the entities committing these infringements appear to be deep-pocketed. [read post]
27 Feb 2012, 10:06 am by Justin Page
No, Tennessee law does not require the use of “e-verify,” but a new Tennessee law appears to strongly encourage its use. [read post]
30 May 2023, 3:34 pm
 Pix Credit: Marble Relief (2 Pair of Collared Slaves led by helmeted men perhaps to fight like the animals below; Izmir (Smyrna) c AD 200 (University of Oxford Collection Sometimes the most intriguing legal developments in the liberal democratic camp come from its most active flanks. [read post]
3 Dec 2013, 1:57 pm
The State Bar does not reimburse its delegates for travel or meeting expenses. [read post]
10 Oct 2017, 3:50 am by Nico Cordes
Inventiveness of claim 1 of the main request2.1 The appealed decision (section 4) selected as the closest prior art an example of a PTT application residing in a cellular telephone, as acknowledged in the description ([10] and [11]).2.2 However in the board's opinion, the invention as claimed does not relate to PTT communication as such but merely to an input-/output-process. [read post]
21 Jan 2008, 6:32 am
"IPBiz notes several problems with this analysis:#1. [read post]
27 Apr 2016, 11:48 am by Jack Goldsmith, Amira Mikhail
For example, I understand that some states prohibit contracting with companies that engage in transactions with Iranian entities that are designated as a sanctioned entity by the Department of the Treasury. [read post]
28 Feb 2024, 6:40 am by Dan Bressler
The plaintiffs argue that the firm’s organizational structure – a Swiss verein comprising legally independent entities sharing a brand and certain management functions – does not exempt the Chicago office from liability for the Moscow office’s alleged malpractice. [read post]
3 Sep 2011, 11:01 am by Oliver G. Randl
Here is another textbook example of a disclaimer that does not fulfil the requirements established in G 1/03.The patent proprietor filed an appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division to revoke the opposed patent.The Board found the (main) request I to lack novelty over document D1 (prior art under A 54(3)(4)), and auxiliary requests II and III not to comply with A 123(2). [read post]