Search for: "Does, 1-25"
Results 3841 - 3860
of 18,546
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 May 2015, 6:06 am
” How does it do this? [read post]
25 Dec 2018, 3:00 am
P.38.1(k)(1)(C). [read post]
9 Mar 2022, 9:18 am
How does a company take advantage of this special dispensation? [read post]
1 Jul 2024, 5:11 am
However, the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Kazarian does not actually impose a final merits determination, nor does this requirement appear anywhere in the relevant regulatory criteria. [read post]
15 Jun 2023, 10:57 am
Passed 4/25/2023; signed by Governor 06/01/203. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 12:46 pm
Does 1-25, 2004 U.S. [read post]
3 May 2012, 5:01 pm
The Board thus concludes that the subject-matter of claim 1 of this request does not extend beyond the content of the application as filed, such that the requirements of A 123(2) are satisfied. [read post]
27 Jan 2017, 8:29 pm
Southern California cities and counties that have implemented paid sick leave laws State/City Minimum Wage Paid Sick Leave California $10/hr January 1, 2016; $10.50 January 1, 2017 for employers with 26 or more employees Current: 3 days or 24 hours Los Angeles – City July 1, 2016: $10.50/hr; July 1, 2017 $12; July 1, 2018 $13.25; July 1, 2019 $14.25; July 1, 2020 $15.00 * July 1, 2016: 48 hours* Los Angeles – County… [read post]
3 Dec 2009, 8:03 am
N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19d. [read post]
6 Feb 2010, 1:59 am
1) 1 lb. [read post]
7 Apr 2020, 3:34 pm
” Implying that Section 104(a)(1) applies in all other circumstances, the FFCRA makes an exception for employers that employ fewer than 25 employees under certain circumstances. [read post]
3 Nov 2020, 5:42 am
Gore[1] are on the rise. [read post]
3 Nov 2020, 5:42 am
Gore[1] are on the rise. [read post]
30 Jan 2019, 10:28 am
Rate 1/1/19 >9.5 hrs/day or >55 hrs/week n/a 1/1/22 >9.5 hrs/day or >55 hrs/week n/a 1/1/20 >9 hrs/day Or >50 hrs/week n/a 1/1/23 >9 hrs/day or >50 hrs/week n/a 1/1/21 >8.5 hrs/day or >45 hrs/week n/a 1/1/24 >8.5 hrs/day or >45 hrs/week n/a 1/1/22 >8 hrs/day or >40 hrs/week >12 hrs/day 1/1/25 … [read post]
18 Jun 2018, 7:06 pm
This scenario does not apply to nonsignatories. [read post]
13 Mar 2011, 4:01 pm
In this regard the Board points out that this wording of R 36(1) EPC is identical to the wording of the former R 25(1) EPC 1973 and, therefore, the corresponding case law can be taken into account.[6] The present Board agrees with the statement of the Legal Board of Appeal in decision J 18/04 that the term “pending earlier European patent application” in R 25 EPC 1973 did not establish a time limit having a point in time at which the pending status of… [read post]
18 Feb 2021, 1:19 am
FactsIn June 2011, Ascendis Animal Health (Pty) Limited (the applicant) initiated revocation proceedings against Merck Sharp Dohme Corporation and Merial Limited (the respondents) for the annulment and repeal of the Patent 1998/10975 (the patent) in terms of section 61(1) of the Patents Act 57 of 1978 (the Act) because the invention was not patentable under section 25 of the Act as the invention was not new and it lacked an inventive step. [read post]
31 May 2023, 4:00 am
1. [read post]
18 Feb 2021, 1:19 am
FactsIn June 2011, Ascendis Animal Health (Pty) Limited (the applicant) initiated revocation proceedings against Merck Sharp Dohme Corporation and Merial Limited (the respondents) for the annulment and repeal of the Patent 1998/10975 (the patent) in terms of section 61(1) of the Patents Act 57 of 1978 (the Act) because the invention was not patentable under section 25 of the Act as the invention was not new and it lacked an inventive step. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 7:11 am
Europe’s highest court issued two huge rulings on Sept. 25 regarding the implementation of the EU’s “Right to Be Forgotten. [read post]
