Search for: "Downloader 16"
Results 3181 - 3200
of 3,826
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Apr 2024, 10:32 am
LINK TO DOWNLOAD ALSO HERE.This in part from the Press Release:Pix credit hereMauricio Lissovsky foi historiador e professor da Escola de Comunicação da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. [read post]
21 Oct 2013, 5:01 pm
Examples for circumstances that can be taken into account in exercising this discretion are given in the notice of the Vice-President of DG3 dated 16 July 2007 concerning OPs (OJ EPO 1/2013, Supplement, pages 68 to 69, hereinafter “the Notice”). [read post]
27 Feb 2018, 10:17 am
Feb. 16, 2018)Charter allegedly defrauded New York consumers by promising high-speed Internet services and reliable access to online content that it knew it couldn’t or wouldn’t deliver, in violation of Section 53(12) of the NY Executive Law and sections 349 and 350 of the GBL. [read post]
14 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
The present appeal concerns a decision of the Receiving Section (RS) of the EPO, dispatched on 22 December 2010, refusing the applicant’s requests that the invitation to remedy deficiencies pursuant to R 30(3) be withdrawn and the late furnishing fee refunded. [read post]
3 Aug 2016, 1:39 pm
Download the Report HERE. [read post]
12 May 2013, 5:01 pm
In the present decision Board 3.3.04 had to decide on an application in the field of homeopathic drugs. [read post]
3 Oct 2012, 7:10 am
Downloads Files from Defendant’s Server After Dissolution http://bit.ly/Pri2EP (Jennifer Connelly) Plaintiffs Should Pay for Extensive Discovery Prior to Class Certification – eDiscovery Case Law – http://bit.ly/QpSlHQ (Doug Austin) Predictive Coding: Time, Cost and Accuracy in eDiscovery: Discussion with Howard Sklar – http://bit.ly/PFFazC (Lauren Everhart) Preparing for Data Collection in Internal Investigations – http://bit.ly/PvonPr (Michael Volkov)… [read post]
31 Mar 2013, 5:01 pm
The applicant paid only 80% of the filing fee and referred to R 6(3).On July 16, 2010, the RS informed the applicant that the filing fee had not been paid in full and that the requirements of R 6(3) were not fulfilled. [read post]
5 Jun 2017, 12:13 pm
Riley, 2013 S.D. 95, ¶ 16, 841 N.W.2d 431, 436. [read post]
28 Apr 2013, 6:07 am
Anybody 16 or older can get a card. [read post]
26 Oct 2015, 2:46 am
This blogger enjoys learning of the experiences of others and often writes about them. [read post]
26 Mar 2013, 6:01 pm
On November 16 the EPO invited the opponent to replenish its account and to file a debit order for the corresponding administrative fee (211.5 €). [read post]
12 Jun 2013, 5:01 pm
He must have carefully chosen the assistant, instructed him/her properly in view of the tasks to be performed and must have exercised reasonable supervision of his/her work (J 16/82 [5]). [read post]
12 Jun 2013, 4:49 am
[Rock] communicated from July 23, 2008 to October 16, 2008 with the officer masquerading as Jilly12MA. . . . [read post]
20 Feb 2019, 11:36 am
” On Saturday, Feb. 16, as Trump received a briefing on the trade talks at Mar-a-Lago, Vice President Pence delivered a fiery speech at the Munich Security Conference. [read post]
25 Dec 2015, 7:27 pm
Topics are defined in six parts for ease of use: Preparation for Wills/Estate Planning Interviews Interviewing Clients Additional Estate Planning Issues Estate Administration Guardianship of Disabled or Incompetent Parents Marketing Your Wills and Estate Administration Practice Making this an essential resource for solo and small firm practitioners, the author includes numerous forms for each topic, and… [read post]
21 Nov 2012, 5:01 pm
This is an appeal against the revocation of the opposed patent. it was limited to the issue of whether the opposition had been validly filed.The notice of opposition had been filed two days prior to the expiry of the opposition period, on 1 December 2004. [read post]
8 Sep 2013, 5:01 pm
In his commentary on Romans, Origen asserts that “ipsa etiam novitas innovanda est” (“novelty itself also is to be renewed”). [read post]
13 Jul 2016, 8:04 am
Bleeping Computer LLC, 16 CV 57 (S.D.N.Y. [read post]
7 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
The board concludes therefrom that the subject-matter of claim 1 does not present the skilled person with technical information which could not be derived clearly and unambiguously from the application as filed.[16] Secondly, the board agrees with the [patent proprietor] that also the line of reasoning developed in decision T 201/83 is of relevance to the present case. [read post]
