Search for: "C/T"
Results 4181 - 4200
of 50,237
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Jul 2011, 11:36 pm
With this sort of express and direct partisan link, it doesn’t seem particularly surprising to raise eyebrows in a (c)(4) application to the IRS. [read post]
13 Mar 2012, 8:21 pm
S Corporations generally don’t owe tax. [read post]
1 Mar 2011, 12:19 pm
The issue was in a case brought by AT&T, whether a corporation could be considered a person pursuant to Exemption 7(C) and therefore be provided “privacy” rights for its information under the exemption. [read post]
17 Jun 2022, 11:09 am
The senators didn't mention USB-C but cited the EU's upcoming legislation that will require smartphones, digital cameras, e-readers, headsets, laptops, and some other consumer tech products with wired charging to use USB-C.Read 19 remaining paragraphs | Comments [read post]
11 Dec 2006, 2:07 pm
§ 2255, he can't use 2255 again. [read post]
20 Sep 2011, 11:29 pm
Doesn't C-32 create exceptions that mean "anything goes"? [read post]
7 Nov 2011, 6:56 am
That’s my “C” word in the bankruptcy alphabet. [read post]
23 Jul 2007, 6:25 pm
Chris Dodd- C-: He behaved a lot like Biden but didn’t have the the same understated charm. [read post]
7 Mar 2012, 11:57 am
Second, these infections aren't just hospital-acquired, or nosocomial, anymore. [read post]
19 May 2013, 5:01 pm
T 19/87 [5]; T 668/89 [3]; T 417/00 [2.3] T 1829/10 [2.4]). [read post]
25 Feb 2015, 6:25 am
Eagle Rock Entm’t, Inc., 655 F. [read post]
28 Dec 2019, 1:00 am
However, as the Board of Appeal (3.2.05) in T 1299/15 confirmed, it is possible for the burden of proof to shift back to the patentee if "serious doubts" exist regarding whether a skilled person could carry out the invention: Burden of Proof was Shifting the burden of proof back to the patentee (T 1299/15).Exceptions to patentabilityPerfect teethMethods of surgery are excluded from patentability under Article 53(c) EPC. [read post]
4 Jan 2018, 9:40 am
So, why doesn’t the Harvard Law Review publish a free web app and bring The Bluebook outside of the walled, hegemonic garden of academic publishing and into the digital age? [read post]
4 Mar 2011, 11:11 am
The FCC Bureau argued that while AT&T should be afforded some protection under §522(b)(4), the exemptions afforded under §522(b)(7)(C) should not be granted to AT&T because a corporation is not considered a person and therefore should not be conferred a benefit it is not owed. [read post]
9 Feb 2007, 8:20 am
The high -wered counsel they have now employed do bill by the hour and don't come cheaply. [read post]
2 Sep 2015, 7:18 am
This is an interesting 512(c) ruling for at least reasons: * I can’t recall another 512(c) case where a corporation was the “user” who directed the defendant to store the material. [read post]
16 Dec 2009, 2:12 pm
That Court annulled the decision in its judgment in Joined Cases T- 50/06, T-56/06, T-62/06 and T-69/06 Ireland and others v. [read post]
6 May 2019, 7:52 am
(2) hypothesis: causation is important and underthought at this stage b/c modern TM lacks a materiality requirement in the first place, which it should have preserved from the old common law. (3) Also, be interested to have you speak to relationship b/t irreparable harm and difficulty calculating damages—does showing that it’s really hard to trace damages support the pre-eBay practice of having injunctive relief be standard? [read post]
7 Apr 2023, 1:49 pm
We didn’t recommend gov’t designation process or repealing 512(i) entirely. [read post]
21 Sep 2021, 12:26 am
Legal basis for this requirement, the Board noted, could be found in T 488/16 (r. 4.2), T 1329/04 (r. 12), and T 433/05 (r.28). [read post]
