Search for: "DOES I-X"
Results 3361 - 3380
of 7,398
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Apr 2015, 2:26 pm
Elsewhere I have cautiously proposed an approach that I reluctantly called “decisional originalism. [read post]
9 Apr 2015, 5:31 am
James X. [read post]
7 Apr 2015, 2:43 pm
So what does this have to do with IP, or water? [read post]
7 Apr 2015, 2:06 pm
Does it mean that you're being quoted in trade publications? [read post]
7 Apr 2015, 7:23 am
Computers’ basic building blocks are exceedingly simple operations, such as “add 1 to the X Register” and “check if the X Register is bigger than the Accumulator. [read post]
7 Apr 2015, 4:00 am
So, where does that leave most practising lawyers? [read post]
2 Apr 2015, 4:17 am
” The agreement does not specify which individuals were contributing toward the settlement or in what amount. [read post]
2 Apr 2015, 2:00 am
I would say as well it is in the interest of applicants/proprietors to have their own check on clarity and added-matter, and not simply close both eyes when they get the communication under R 71(3). [read post]
1 Apr 2015, 9:01 pm
Such tests might include X-rays, fine-needle aspirations, or biopsies, etc. [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 4:29 pm
But does that require empathy? [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 1:38 pm
And if someone did tell her, how does she not remember that? [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 12:14 pm
Subsection (e) makes the disclaimer irrevocable on the later to occur of (i) delivery or filing or (ii) its becoming effective under the section governing the disclaimer of the particular power or interest. [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 11:45 am
Ditto, Buckman – indeed, the explicit text of §337(a)’s prohibition of prvate enforcement is a fortiori from Armstrong, under the same reasoning.The Court’s second reason is why medical device plaintiffs shouldn’t be allowed to enforce vague FDA Current Good Manufacturing Practices that do nothing more than state that the defendant should adopt some sort of process for doing X, Y, or Z: Such vague standards are “judicially… [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 12:54 pm
When reading such a document, the investor thus distinguishes between the sentences ‘we believe X is true’ and ‘X is true.'” A reasonable investor, according to the Court, “grasps” that opinions lack certainty and are not “guarantees,” and therefore, the omission of a fact that “merely rebuts” the opinion does not render it misleading. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 11:11 am
******************PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO LATENever too late 38 [week ending Sunday 22 March] - Escalating prices of generic drugs in the US | EU Patent Package is not that dangerous | Hollywood screening rhythm | GC on 'Greenworld' trade mark in T - 106&14 | Spanish life after Google Tax | Africa and IP | GC on 'Smart Water' in Case T-250/13 | 'EPO does not violate fundamental rights', says EPO | Coca-Cola look-alike trade mark in GC's decision… [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 7:04 am
X, and he has approved all of these benefits. [read post]
27 Mar 2015, 2:02 pm
” 21 CFR 201.80(f)(6)(i)(c) (the current version is quoted). [read post]
25 Mar 2015, 10:57 pm
[vi] But the potential price for opening a link that does not appear to be obviously suspicious can be breathtakingly high. [read post]
25 Mar 2015, 2:36 pm
I. [read post]
24 Mar 2015, 10:08 pm
After distinguishing facts from opinions by the level of certainty they convey, the Court noted that: every statement of opinion “explicitly affirms” the fact that the speaker actually holds the opinion; and some statements of opinion contain “embedded statements of fact” (such as statements like, “I believe fact X because fact Y is true”). [read post]
