Search for: "Does 1-71"
Results 181 - 200
of 2,526
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Feb 2015, 6:00 am
First, does s. 43(1)(c) create a distinction based on age, and second, if so, does this distinction create a disadvantage by perpetuating prejudice or stereotyping? [read post]
17 Mar 2021, 7:08 am
In support of its request for referral the appellant argued that the holding of oral proceedings in the form of a videoconference was not compatible with Articles 116 and 113(1) EPC.The appellant raised the general point of law of whether conducting oral proceedings in the form of a videoconference was compatible with Article 116(1) EPC. [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 9:37 am
Doe et al v. [read post]
28 Mar 2013, 6:01 pm
G 1/05 [11.1] and T 600/08 [2.3]. [read post]
26 Jan 2007, 10:21 am
My January 20, 2007 post "What Does Exclusive Mean To You? [read post]
21 Feb 2020, 3:30 am
Katherine Klein When you picture the rural, what does it look like to you? [read post]
9 Oct 2013, 5:01 pm
T 961/00 [1]. [read post]
18 Jan 2013, 7:01 am
In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. [read post]
9 Feb 2007, 12:53 am
Separately, one notes that the Baker-Deal report, used as a pro-Proposition 71 advocacy vehicle BEFORE Proposition 71 passed, has come under increased scrutiny years AFTER Proposition 71 passed. [read post]
23 Sep 2019, 11:06 pm
All documents referred to shall be [...](4) Any part of a party's appeal case which does not meet the requirements in paragraph 2 is to be regarded as an amendment, unless the party demonstrates that this part was admissibly raised and maintained in the proceedings leading to the decision under appeal. [read post]
28 Mar 2013, 12:38 pm
Specifically, FDA increased firm inspections from 120 in 2008 to 410 from January 1 to September 30, 2012. [read post]
21 Sep 2011, 5:01 pm
In summary, A 113(1) does not merely require a party to be given an opportunity to voice comments; more importantly, it requires the deciding instance to demonstrably hear and consider them (T 763/04 [4.4]; T 246/08 [2.6]). [read post]
27 Oct 2013, 6:01 pm
Further, as regards the “gusset panel feature” the ED does not provide any (documentary) basis for its allegation that the skilled person would obviously provide them for obtaining a liquid-tight bottom, nor does it refute the hindsight-argument of the appellant. [read post]
21 Feb 2008, 3:16 am
How many prosecutors comply with R.C.M. 703(d); the defense has to, so does the prosecution; yet they don't. [read post]
21 Mar 2014, 3:53 pm
What does that mean? [read post]
13 Mar 2013, 6:32 am
(More specifically, the two guidance documents rescinded were: (1) Interpreting Nondiscrimination Requirements of Executive Order 11246 With Respect to Systemic Compensation Discrimination (“Compensation Standards”), 71 FR 35124, and (2) Voluntary Guidelines for Self-Evaluation of Compensation Practices for Compliance with Nondiscrimination Requirements of Executive Order 11246 (“Voluntary Guidelines”), 71 FR 35114.) [read post]
15 Sep 2013, 1:46 pm
Now, a study published in the Journal of Healthcare Quality finds that of the approximately 1 million robotic surgeries performed since 2000, only 245 complications -- including 71 deaths -- were reported to the FDA. [read post]
13 Sep 2016, 8:18 pm
What does this decision mean for insurers? [read post]
13 Oct 2009, 11:00 am
How does one fairly rank world universities? [read post]
27 Jan 2011, 10:06 am
’Today the ECJ ruled as follows: "1. [read post]
