Search for: "Does 1-84"
Results 101 - 120
of 2,372
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Apr 2023, 8:24 pm
Co. (204 AD3d 525 [1st Dept 2022]) , citing Bentoria, AFFIRMED Supreme Court's order granting the insurer's pre-answer CPLR 3211(a)(1) motion to dismiss the complaint based on documentary evidence, holding:The documentary evidence conclusively establishes a defense to plaintiff's claims (CPLR 3211[a][1]; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]). [read post]
18 May 2023, 9:05 pm
Journal of Financial Economics 84, 797–825. [read post]
27 Nov 2023, 1:25 am
If the answer to question 1 is "yes", can an application consequently be refused based on Article 84 EPC if the applicant does not remove the inconsistency in scope between the description and/or drawings and the claims by way of amendment of the description ("adaptation of the description"). [read post]
18 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
Claim 1 of the request thus fulfils the requirements of A 84 and A 83. [read post]
10 Dec 2015, 9:19 am
As of December 1 of this year, Rule 84 is abrogated, and the official appendix of forms is no more. [read post]
10 Dec 2015, 9:19 am
As of December 1 of this year, Rule 84 is abrogated, and the official appendix of forms is no more. [read post]
19 Apr 2014, 9:09 am
B.J. 1 (2001) [hereinafter Quillen I]; Cecil D. [read post]
10 Feb 2016, 5:17 pm
Lennane (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 536, 557.)And then 2/5 knock's one out for lack of appealability here. [read post]
12 Dec 2018, 12:00 am
The decision under appeal to refuse the application is based on three reasons: the application does not comply with the requirements of conciseness in accordance with Article 84 EPC because there are three independent claims; the independent claims are not in the two-part form in accordance with Rule 43(1) EPC; and the features of the claims are not provided with reference signs in accordance with Rule 43(7) EPC.As can be seen from the wording of the set of claims of the… [read post]
19 Apr 2022, 8:00 am
§ 1295(a)(1). [read post]
4 Sep 2007, 4:21 am
The fiscal year runs from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30. [read post]
13 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
The application was refused because claim 1 did not fulfil the requirements of A 84 and A 123(2) EPC. [read post]
22 Dec 2016, 8:45 am
Therefore, the task that the plaintiff was engaged in at the time of the accident was the task of riding in a pickup truck, which, as indicated, does not present an elevation-related risk.The Second Department also found that, even if Labor Law § 240(1) applied, plaintiff would not be entitled to recovery because, under the circumstances of this case, any failure on the part of the general contractor to provide the plaintiff with protection from riding in the back of the… [read post]
22 Dec 2016, 8:45 am
Therefore, the task that the plaintiff was engaged in at the time of the accident was the task of riding in a pickup truck, which, as indicated, does not present an elevation-related risk.The Second Department also found that, even if Labor Law § 240(1) applied, plaintiff would not be entitled to recovery because, under the circumstances of this case, any failure on the part of the general contractor to provide the plaintiff with protection from riding in the back of the… [read post]
14 Jun 2012, 5:01 pm
Consequently, the subject-matter of claim 1 presents an inherent contradiction. [3.5] The main request does not meet the requirements of A 84. [read post]
8 Apr 2014, 9:08 am
It does this on a fixed price basis. [read post]
15 May 2013, 9:33 am
Br. 28.Thus, we summarily affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 76-84 under35 U.S.C. [read post]
13 Apr 2022, 4:00 am
For this last week: 1. [read post]
3 Apr 2017, 7:10 am
" [Article 1(2)]The question that arises - and has actually arisen - is who is responsible for paying such royalty.The Resal Right Directive - in my view and contrary to the reasons for harmonization within Recital 9 - fails to provide a uniform response, in that Article 1(4) therein does not really mandate a harmonized approach at the level of individual Member States. [read post]
14 Dec 2009, 4:38 pm
Tucker (2000) 84 Cal App 4th 1163; McOwen v. [read post]
