Search for: "DOES 1-12" Results 2301 - 2320 of 28,904
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Jul 2015, 8:10 pm by Dmitry Karshtedt
And the 180-day delay does matter in this case because Amgen’s 12-year exclusivity period has expired. [read post]
19 Oct 2022, 4:00 am by Administrator
Manninen, 1987 CanLII 67 (CSC), [1987] 1 R.C.S. 1233. [read post]
12 Dec 2009, 8:10 am
Working from the claim that the primary rationale for constitutional protection of speech is the mandate that government respect individual freedom or autonomy, the essay argues: 1) that the individual does not choose, but rather the market dictates the content of commercial speech; 2) that the commercial speech should be attributed to an artificial, instrumentally entity - the business enterprise - rather than the flesh and blood person whose liberty merits protection; 3) market… [read post]
11 Oct 2018, 4:14 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Here, in Sehgal v DiRaimondo  2018 NY Slip Op 06619  Decided on October 4, 2018  the Appellate Division, First Department does just that. [read post]
App. 1 Cir. 12/30/20), ___ So.3d ___, the court invalidated a regulation that had the effect of increasing the corporate taxpayer’s Louisiana apportionment percentage and, therefore, its corporate tax liability. [read post]
23 Mar 2008, 3:12 am
B.J. 1 (2001).]Quillen does not mention in the Virginia article papers criticizing his work.See also -->http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2008/03/more-on-bessen-and-meurer.html [read post]
25 Jan 2022, 10:47 am by Becky
Its EUTM Registration No. 10511591 for the 3D mark below, covering goods and services in Classes 12, 16, 35, 37, 39, and 41:2. [read post]
29 Nov 2020, 8:08 pm by Arthur F. Coon
  In this respect, the Court held: (1) as a matter of law CEQA does not allow partial decertification of an EIR as a remedy because its statutory language requires a public agency to certify “the completion of” the EIR (Pub. [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]
27 Mar 2007, 11:29 pm
(2/5/07)Bone screws and informed consent (2/4/07)Deconstructing the duty to test (2/1/07)Silly MDL tricks (1/30/07)Litigation preparedness and IT upgrades (1/29/07)CAFA and choice of law (1/27/07)More thoughts on pharmaceutical class actions (1/26/07) Defenses to FDCA-based negligence per se (1/25/07) 2003 amendment to Rule 23 (1/24/07)Plaintiffs' counsel "hijacking" the news cycle (1/22/07) Rule 706 experts on… [read post]
5 Jan 2015, 6:18 am
” As the judge noted, to have a cause of action under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,Halperin must plausibly allege that Defendants caused `a loss to 1 or more persons during any 1–year period . . . aggregating at least $5,000 in value. [read post]
11 Oct 2013, 9:06 pm by Lyle Denniston
The en banc decision (found here) is not directly a ruling about whether the Constitution does or does not tolerate race-conscious admissions to public colleges. [read post]
14 Jul 2013, 9:12 am by John Day
But, in the "for what it's worth department, here are my comments on the criminal verdict: 1. [read post]
21 Oct 2014, 7:30 am by EEM
Since a preprint is the pre-published, pre-referreed draft of a journal article, the author holds copyright over this version and does not need to seek permission to archive it. [read post]