Search for: "Does 1-37"
Results 3321 - 3340
of 5,277
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 May 2013, 9:09 am
From the reasons McLachlin C.J. wrote for the Court. [1] The main question on this appeal is whether a trial judge’s decision should be set aside because his reasons for judgment incorporated large portions of the plaintiffs’ submissions. [read post]
22 May 2013, 6:22 pm
The meeting with Hatim was to take place on May 1, two days before a prehearing conference in Hatim’s habeas case. [read post]
22 May 2013, 8:39 am
” H.B. 2036, sec. 9(B)(1). [read post]
21 May 2013, 5:45 am
It was an essential element of the offences under s 172.1(1) of the Criminal Code which the appellant was charged with, that he communicated with DP by means of a computer system, an element which the Crown was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt; see R v Legare, 2009 SCC 56 (CanLII), 2009 SCC 56, [2009] SCR 51 at paras 36-37. [read post]
21 May 2013, 4:15 am
Prior to the pilot program even amendments requiring nominal further consideration were routinely denied under 37 C.F.R. [read post]
20 May 2013, 6:00 am
Distinctions Concerning the Target of Surveillance and/or His Interlocutors 1. [read post]
15 May 2013, 8:41 am
Cir. 2011) (holding that the Board hadreasonably interpreted 37 C.F.R. [read post]
13 May 2013, 7:30 am
” Brief for Petitioner 37 (citing Aro, 365 U. [read post]
13 May 2013, 6:53 am
Reg. 37 (Feb. 25, 2013). [read post]
11 May 2013, 4:00 am
However, as a matter of policy, the DEP does not accept doctors' notes indicating an indefinite period of leave. [read post]
9 May 2013, 2:00 am
The Family Services Plan was never approved by a court, as is required under § 37-2-403(a)(2). [read post]
8 May 2013, 7:00 am
MIP filed a notice of opposition ex Article 42 of Regulation 40/94 (Article 41 CTMR), relying on Article 8(1)(b) of the same Regulation. macros consult GmbH, on the other hand, submitted an application for a declaration of invalidity of MIP's figurative sign, under Articles 52(1)(c) and 55 of Regulation 40/94 (Articles 53(1)(c) and 56 CTMR). [read post]
7 May 2013, 5:00 am
[1] James T. [read post]
5 May 2013, 7:23 am
In paragraph 1 it proposes a distinction between NPEs and PAEs that I hadn't seen before -- these terms are synonyms. [read post]
2 May 2013, 6:00 am
A copy of the proposed amendments does not yet appear to be available online. [read post]
28 Apr 2013, 9:03 pm
Together they spent close to $1 million so far, most probably on petition signature gathering. [read post]
26 Apr 2013, 4:00 pm
at 37-38. [read post]
18 Apr 2013, 5:01 pm
Moreover, claim 1 does not contain any additional feature related to any implementation in a therapeutic method.The particular approach to novelty created by decision G 6/83, therefore, does not apply to claim 1 of the main request, the subject-matter of which is equivalent to a process claim, i.e. [read post]
18 Apr 2013, 11:36 am
If Katznelson is correct, and more than 14% of patent litigations filed in FY 2012 related to patents less than 1 year old, the increase in patent litigation doesn’t seem tied to monetizers, who in many cases partner with the original innovators, as does Acacia Research. [read post]
16 Apr 2013, 1:03 pm
He was 1/8th Cherokee, which by the CJ’s logic is almost zero Cherokee. [read post]
