Search for: "Application of Smith"
Results 4001 - 4020
of 7,620
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Dec 2010, 9:59 pm
The cases involved a man and a woman who had been dismissed by the Royal Air Force and 2 men who had been dismissed by the Royal Navy for being homosexual (see, respectively, Smith And Grady v United Kingdom and Lustig-Prean and Beckett v UK; also, the 2002 case of Beck, Copp and Bazeley v UK). [read post]
25 Apr 2024, 7:28 pm
The applicable section of the Privacy Rule (45 C.F.R. [read post]
13 Sep 2012, 6:55 pm
Justice Smith’s conclusion. [read post]
18 Feb 2011, 10:00 pm
As for the application for a declaration, this had already been made in Smith v Scott and therefore there was nothing of additional practical use which granting a declaration would serve. [read post]
16 Jul 2024, 8:09 am
Reed Smith will continue to follow developments with regard to the HIPPA information blocking regulations. [read post]
2 Nov 2011, 10:14 am
Patent and Trademark Office from using funds to implement Section 37 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act concerning patent terms extensions (see our previous post here). [read post]
12 May 2011, 12:43 am
Smith 279 F3d 1135 (9th Cir). [read post]
10 Aug 2020, 11:45 am
Vernon Smith, Legislative Committee Staffer, at Vernon.Smith@tonation-nsn.gov. [read post]
3 Jun 2020, 5:30 am
This dichotomy warrants constitutional scrutiny under Smith, as well as Masterpiece Cakeshop. [read post]
15 Apr 2007, 9:43 am
Ct. 455 (1935) for the proposition "*1075 Under the statute it is the claims of the patent which define the invention" and cited Smith v. [read post]
19 May 2022, 10:18 am
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless — (a) the invention was … patented or described in a printed publication … before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication … more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or We can quickly eliminate the 102(b) time-bar because the patent applications at issue here were filed… [read post]
10 Jul 2023, 2:25 am
(3) Should the Court determine issues 1 and/or 2 above on a summary judgment and/or strike-out application? [read post]
2 Nov 2020, 11:19 am
Chien, Piloting Applicant-Initiated 101 Deferral Through A Randomized Controlled Trial, 2019 Patently-O Patent Law Journal 1. (2019.Chien.DeferringPSM) David A. [read post]
16 Aug 2018, 9:01 pm
Smith. [read post]
Case Comment: Petroleo Brasileiro S.A (Respondent) v E.N.E. Kos 1 Limited (Appellant) [2012] UKSC 17
6 Aug 2012, 2:34 am
Lord Sumption observed that there were two relevant preconditions to the application of the Indemnity in these proceedings. [read post]
25 Mar 2008, 9:36 pm
The supplier should warrant and certify that it understands and will comply with the applicable specifications or standards. [read post]
12 Jan 2008, 9:21 am
Based on Smith v. [read post]
15 Oct 2009, 8:50 am
The most active questioners, Lippman, Smith and Pigott, all seemed very concerned about limiting the scope of the ruling. [read post]
26 Mar 2018, 4:20 pm
Neither would it be for the press to criticise Mr Smith for receiving treatment on the NHS when it is clear Mr Smith can afford to pay privately but Mr Jones cannot. [read post]
7 May 2020, 1:06 pm
Sineneng-Smith. [read post]
