Search for: "DOES, 1-20"
Results 3921 - 3940
of 27,646
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Jul 2021, 2:11 pm
§ 20-16.2(a)(1), an individual may refuse a chemical analysis. [read post]
18 May 2014, 10:04 pm
However, this tolerance does not apply to the use of (b)(4) (tilmicosin injection) NADA (b)(4), in female dairy cattle 20 months of age or older, and there is no acceptable level of residue associated with the use of this drug in female dairy cattle 20 months of age or older. [read post]
17 Apr 2013, 11:50 am
Myriad Genetics, a spin-off from the University of Utah's Centre for Genetic Epidemiology, holds several patents which cover two genes associated with an increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer, BRCA1 and BRCA2 (together with their mutations and cDNA - DNA synthesised by mRNA, through a process which removes non-coding sequences, called introns), as well as the methods to detect their entire sequence and mutations, and the associated diagnostic tests and screening procedures (claims 1,… [read post]
10 Apr 2013, 11:23 am
Does this mean they stably disvalue it at $1? [read post]
10 Aug 2015, 12:57 am
The fact that he is a prominent sportsman does not mean that he impliedly pontificates publicly about private morality” [20] In these circumstances, the Judge concluded that publication of the story would “undoubtedly interfere” with A1 and A2’s Article 8 right. [read post]
4 Dec 2008, 11:54 pm
In these circumstances, section 20(1)(c) was satisfied, and Sutton was under the duty imposed by that subsection. [read post]
26 Jul 2017, 1:28 pm
The legislation is effective December 1, 2017. [read post]
21 Jun 2019, 6:56 am
Eli Lilly’s patent (EP 1 313 508) has a Swiss form claim relating to the “use of pemetrexed disodium” in combination with vitamin B12 for inhibiting tumor growth. [read post]
20 Dec 2013, 5:00 am
The information is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice or any contractual obligations. [read post]
26 Mar 2015, 7:46 am
Given the facts of those cases (see points 18 and 20, above) the Enlarged Board does not consider that the Boards there intended these words to have the expanded meaning given to them in T 472/88 and the later cases which followed this approach. [read post]
11 Sep 2013, 11:30 am
Keller, at *1. [read post]
6 Mar 2023, 11:00 am
There, the CJEU held that – while the mere provision of physical facilities does not as such amount to communication to the public in accordance with recital 27 – the installation of such facilities and the distribution of a signal by means of television sets by a hotel to customers staying in its rooms, whatever technique is used to transmit the signal, does constitute communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC.Since… [read post]
3 Dec 2013, 3:10 am
The scan does not affect symptoms or cure the disease. [read post]
11 Sep 2013, 1:07 am
On the other hand, from interpreting the bar graph in the report, it does look as if just about 20 percent of the claims settled for over $5 million, which is consistent with the oft-stated principle that D&O claims tend to be low frequency and high severity. [read post]
1 Dec 2022, 2:29 am
” 1 U.S.C. [read post]
31 Oct 2017, 8:30 am
The NetzDG does not create new categories of unlawful content, but instead defines the scope of the law by referencing over 20 sections of the German Criminal Code. [read post]
6 Jun 2014, 4:00 am
*PERB’s Administrative Law Judge had held that Islip had violated Civil Service Law §209-a (1) (d) by canceling "take home" vehicle assignments without negotiation -- a clear and unequivocal 20-plus year practice -- and had ordered the Town to:1. [read post]
4 Dec 2014, 3:34 am
So: does Dimensione Direct Sales and Labianca raise "a new point of law" as per Article 20 of the Treaty on the European Union, while cases like - say - Svensson were much more straightforward? [read post]
2 Jun 2014, 7:23 am
Interviews were completed by YouGov online and by telephone between 1 April 2014 and 16 May 2014. [read post]
28 Feb 2023, 8:49 am
Monz appealed this decision and the German Supreme Court (case I ZB 31/20) referred the following questions to the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU): (1) Is a component part “visible” if it is objectively possible to recognise the design when the component is mounted, or should visibility be assessed under certain conditions of use or from a certain observer perspective? [read post]
