Search for: "Does 1-99" Results 401 - 420 of 3,305
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
What the evidence is alleged to be proving is explained by the [opponent] in the notice of opposition (see also point [1.5] above), in particular with respect to the sole alleged distinguishing feature of the characterising part of claim 1 over D1. [read post]
16 Feb 2012, 5:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
The Board went on: “However, this does not mean that i f R 64 (a) is not or not correctly met then A 107 first sentence will necessarily not be complied with” (idem). [read post]
5 Nov 2014, 1:10 am by Andrew Trask
  “Vulnerability theory” may be novel, but in a political system that seems increasingly polarized between haves and have-nots, or between the 1% and the 99%, knowing the nuances of arguments for skewing the rules in a particular direction is always good. [read post]
21 Nov 2012, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
Again, the case at issue does not give rise to any discussion on insufficient payment, but on the interpretation of the opponents intent to pay. [read post]
2 Feb 2011, 7:44 am
This means that fault, even if 99% lies with one party, that party can still seek recovery from the other party for their 1% fault. [read post]
17 May 2011, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
However, the examination of admissibility pursuant to A 108 and R 99(2) does not depend on whether D5 is admitted into the proceedings (see above, [1.4]).[1.7] In its statement of grounds of appeal, filed within four months after delivery of the decision of the OD, the appellant has given a detailed statement that the impugned patent had to be revoked for lack of novelty and lack of inventive step and that this should be done on the basis of evidence D5.[1.8] Moreover, the… [read post]
6 Oct 2009, 2:15 pm
The Millennium Advantage Prepaid MasterCard goes further, listing an application fee of up to $99. [read post]
24 Jun 2008, 3:03 pm
Under that agreement, Caton was paid a $600K signing bonus; and an additional $600K for being employed on both Feb. 1, 2006 and $647,500 for being employed on Feb. 1, 2007. [read post]
14 Dec 2007, 9:31 am
Note: The receipt of an IFCA notice by the OIC does not mean that the claim has merit or that the insurance company has violated any laws. [read post]
26 Feb 2014, 4:00 am by Administrator
John Doe 2014 BCSC 79[1] Occasionally a seemingly innocuous event can have tragic consequences. [2] On the morning of December 4, 2006, the plaintiff, an emergency room physician, was driving his Honda Accord (“Honda”) eastbound on Lorimer Road from his home in Whistler, British Columbia to the Whistler Health Care Centre (“WHCC”). [read post]
19 Jan 2011, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
Consequently, there can be no discretion regarding the procedural acts prescribed in A 106 to A 108 in conjunction with R 99 for the filing of an appeal.Therefore, the present board does not see any valid ground to depart from the case law cited. [5] The applicant also raised the issue of “natural justice”. [read post]
1 Dec 2016, 3:32 pm by Michael J. Petro
  The amendment at issue here was delayed by operation ofsection 1(a) of the Effective Date of Laws Act (Effective Date Act) (5 ILCS 75/1(a) (West 2014)), which provides that, “[a] bill passed prior to June 1 of a calendar year that does not provide for an effective date in the terms of the bill shall become effective on January 1 of the following year, or upon its becoming a law, whichever is later. [read post]