Search for: "Does 1-104"
Results 1 - 20
of 1,704
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Oct 2009, 5:44 pm
" Although A 104(1) EPC does not refer to the boards of appeal any more (in contrast to A 104(1) EPC 1973), the boards of appeal still have the power to apportion costs according to A 104(1) EPC. [read post]
5 Sep 2010, 5:32 pm
Payments under the classic structured settlement is for payment of damages which are of the form excluded under IRC 104(a)(2) or IRC 104(a0(1) in the case of workers compensation payments. [read post]
12 Jun 2009, 3:48 pm
A non qualified assignment has similar properties to a structured settlement while taking advantage of tax deferral instead of the IRC 104(1) or IRC 104(a)(2) tax exemption. [read post]
22 Nov 2006, 2:10 pm
The IPKat has come across a reference to the ECJ under the Art.234 procedure, calling on the court to interpret Directive 89/104, Art.3(1)(e) first indent (shapes resulting from the nature of the goods themselves). [read post]
2 Sep 2013, 10:55 am
Id. at *1. [read post]
11 Feb 2014, 12:25 pm
WHEN DOES THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE KICK IN? [read post]
15 May 2007, 1:41 pm
[The IPKat says that this question is badly phrased - does it refer to 1(i) or (ii)? [read post]
23 Jan 2017, 8:07 am
§ 13-80-104(1)(b)(II) does not provide for a blanket tolling of third-party construction claims. [read post]
23 Jan 2017, 8:07 am
§ 13-80-104(1)(b)(II) does not provide for a blanket tolling of third-party construction claims. [read post]
31 Dec 2005, 1:54 am
WCAB (Rider) the Supreme Court addressed the mandatory language of Section 306(a.2)(1) of the Act which requires that an employer have an IRE within sixty (60) days of the Claimant's receipt of 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits.The Court easily disposed of Rider. [read post]
31 May 2013, 7:24 am
From a more general perspective, the Court noted that the admissibility or validity of an application for a declaration of invalidity does not depend on the good faith of the applicant. [read post]
9 Sep 2015, 2:49 am
104. [read post]
4 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm
In particular, the Board cannot see any intentional abuse of proceedings, so that there are no reasons of equity that make it necessary to order a different apportionment of costs under A 104(1) EPC 1973 in favour of the [opponent]. [read post]
15 Apr 2014, 7:46 am
§ 41.67(c)(1)(vii). [read post]
11 Dec 2013, 10:50 pm
The Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals held (2-1) that the trial court had committed reversible error. [read post]
18 Oct 2017, 3:19 pm
The post Does My Settlement Impact My Taxes? [read post]
23 Mar 2010, 4:08 pm
An internet referencing service provider which stores, as a keyword, a sign identical with a trade mark and organises the display of advertisements on the basis of that keyword does not use that sign within the meaning of Article 5(1) and (2) of Directive 89/104 or of Article 9(1) of Regulation No 40/94. 3. [read post]
5 May 2010, 7:01 am
"But does it? [read post]
26 Aug 2013, 4:30 am
How Much Does the Ignition Interlock Device Cost? [read post]
6 Aug 2013, 10:20 am
When does the Brown Act allow a Council or Board to meet outside their jurisdiction? [read post]
