Search for: "MATTER OF S C B C and J C" Results 241 - 260 of 2,955
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Jan 2023, 10:06 am by Michael Oykhman
Clarification (3) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), an indictable offence referred to in either of those subsections includes an offence under any of the following sections: (a) section 57 (forgery of or uttering forged passport); (b) section 58 (fraudulent use of certificate of citizenship); (c) section 130 (personating peace officer); (d) section 131 (perjury); (e) section 342 (theft, forgery, etc., of credit card); (f) section 362… [read post]
This has been further compounded by the CJEU’s recent decision in Royalty Pharma (C-650/17), in which the “core inventive advance” of the basic patent was effectively found to have no relevance in the context of Article 3(a) of the SPC Regulation (as previously reported on this blog), prompting the question whether this would necessitate a reassessment of the CJEU’s prior case law on Article 3(c). [read post]
21 Dec 2022, 1:14 pm by Eugene Volokh
Accordingly, the Supervisor asserts that production of documents requested in Requests 1(a)–(h), 2(a)–(b), 3(a), and 3(c) would require the Supervisor to violate the Voting System Agreement. [read post]
9 Dec 2022, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
Operating based on the perceptual playbooks that are ingrained in us, define our thoughts and are the foundation for our viewpoints, requires that we engage in a critically conscious analysis: a) identify and name the myriad foundations for the perceptual playbook; b) interrogate their consequences; c) take action as necessary to reveal and resolve the tensions in the foundations of inequitable beliefs. [read post]
7 Dec 2022, 12:58 pm by John Elwood
The government acknowledges what it calls a “narrow conflict in the circuits as to whether [Section] 924(c)’s consecutive-sentence mandate applies to a conviction for the greater-included offense under [Section] 924(j). [read post]
5 Dec 2022, 1:47 am by CMS
The Commercial Court (Knowles J) determined both issues in favour of Reignwood. [read post]