Search for: "Does 1-52" Results 21 - 40 of 3,812
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Feb 2021, 10:35 am
Superior Court (1959) 52 Cal.2d 373 (Simmons). [read post]
27 Mar 2017, 1:30 am
In the case at hand, Rule 52(2) was not applicable because the application that led to the patent was a PCT application. [read post]
10 Jun 2014, 1:56 am by Jeremy Speres
  Secondly, the general structure of Regulation 52 seems to suggest that Regulations 52(2) and (3) were intended to apply to extensions of the opposition period (which are covered in Regulation 52(1)).However, it is to be noted that the court adopted a similar line of reasoning to that previously adopted by the same court in Weekly Property Trader v Erasmus 2002 BIP 303 (T). [read post]
6 Mar 2012, 2:16 pm by PaulKostro
A person commits a crime of the fourth degree if he knowingly gives or causes to be given false information under this section [N.J.S.A. 2A:52-1.] [read post]
25 Jul 2021, 7:06 pm by Omar Ha-Redeye
It is commonly used to indicate an area in which the firm or business does most of its work. [read post]
11 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
 [8] The appellant-opponent has argued that claim 1 does not fulfil one prerequisite to qualify as a second medical use-claim in accordance with G 5/83, namely that a “medicament” is used in the treatment. [read post]
13 Jun 2013, 7:54 am by David Oscar Markus
” Rule 52(a), which covers trial court errors generally, similarly prescribes: “Any error . . . that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded. [read post]
20 Feb 2024, 9:19 am by Anastasiia Kyrylenko
Art. 52(1)(b) cannot be used as a backdoor to apply Art. 7(1)(e)(ii). [read post]
11 Apr 2012, 3:03 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
"Plaintiff alleges that, on December 7, 2007, he was assaulted in the lobby of a building (the Building), located at 1745 Caton Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, in which he was a tenant and that he hired defendant to represent him in prosecuting his claim (the Underlying Claim) (complaint, 1'8 1, 4 ) . [read post]
18 Oct 2014, 3:00 am
§ 1-52(16) (Lexis 2013) ('[N]o cause of action shall accrue more than 10 years from the last act or omission of the defendant giving rise to the cause of action'); Robinson v. [read post]
29 Mar 2016, 2:51 pm by Graham Smith
"Luke 11:52: "Woe unto you, cryptographers! [read post]
29 Mar 2016, 2:51 pm by Graham Smith
"Luke 11:52: "Woe unto you, cryptographers! [read post]
29 Mar 2016, 2:51 pm by Graham Smith
"Luke 11:52: "Woe unto you, cryptographers! [read post]