Search for: "DOES 1-44" Results 361 - 380 of 4,295
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Jun 2020, 2:53 am by Léon Dijkman
Stage 4: If damages are not an adequate remedy for either side, where does the balance of convenience lie? [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 3:33 pm
(c) If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does the court, after a defence of invalidity has been raised in proceedings such as those referred to in question 1, retain jurisdiction in respect of the infringement action with the result that (if the claimant so desires) the infringement proceedings must be stayed until the court having jurisdiction under Article 22(4) of Regulation [No 44/2001] has given a decision on the validity of the national part of the… [read post]
15 Sep 2017, 6:17 am by Kenneth Vercammen Esq. Edison
Anti bias statutes CHAPTER 443An Act concerning bias crimes, amending P.L.1998, c.26, P.L.1979, c.179, N.J.S.2C:12-1, N.J.S.2C:33-4, N.J.S.2C:43-7, N.J.S.2C:44-1 and N.J.S.2C:44-3 and adding a new chapter 16 to the New Jersey Statutes. [read post]
5 Sep 2023, 9:53 am by Jennifer Lynch
The new law also leaves open the possibility that, after June 1, 2025, other government actions with respect to genetic data would require a warrant. [read post]
26 Jul 2011, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
In the present case, the distillation under reduced pressure in the range of from 1 to 755 mmHg is disclosed exclusively for high boiling aldehydes, so that the pressure range now required by claim 1 for the distillation of any aldehyde provides the skilled person with technical information which is not directly and unambiguously derivable from the application as filed.Thus, the application as filed does not provide a proper basis for amended claim 1.[2.5] For… [read post]
14 Dec 2010, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
Nor does D1 give any disclosure or suggestion for a method for concluding the presence of a mechanical bond and appears to deal with a different ultrasonic parameter than that of the subject claims. [1.2.1] Claim 1 of this set of claims reads as follows (amendments as compared to claim 1 as originally filed are in bold; emphasis added by the Board): 1. [read post]
9 Apr 2019, 7:16 am by Roel van Woudenberg
This approach differs from other decisions, namely the case law relating to theimplementation of Directive 98/44/EC of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection ofbiotechnological inventions (hereafter referred to as “EU BiotechnologyDirective”) into the EPC.9. [read post]
27 Apr 2020, 4:50 pm by Eugene Volokh
Northam) that the governor lacked the power to do that, under Virginia law: [1.] [read post]
10 Dec 2014, 9:55 pm
See, e.g., ’896 patent, Abstract; id., col. 1, line 66, through col. 2, line 5; id., col. 2, lines 40–44. [read post]