Search for: "Does 1-27"
Results 4421 - 4440
of 11,128
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Jan 2025, 12:26 pm
Doe; Brazilian Worker Center, Inc; La Colaborativa v. [read post]
7 Apr 2011, 1:00 pm
The Article explicitly states that the release of the person sought upon expiration of the sixty-day period does not prejudice subsequent rearrest and extradition upon later delivery of the extradition request and supporting documents. [read post]
18 Sep 2017, 1:36 am
But ante inventionem the skilled person does not necessarily know the most promising springboard. [read post]
13 Aug 2011, 11:01 am
In particular, this does not follow from the requirement that the claims must be supported by the description (which, pursuant to R 27(1)(e), need not include examples). [read post]
26 Nov 2024, 9:05 pm
This is no doubt the kind of significant cost-cutting that DOGE aspires to, but does it really count if the costs are simply shifted to a private-sector regulator who then levies an inspection fee on the regulated entities? [read post]
21 May 2012, 5:01 pm
The application documents filed with the EPO contained, apart from the claims and the abstract, description pages 1 to 15 and a set of drawings, comprising Fig. 1 to Fig. 12. [read post]
30 Nov 2009, 12:06 am
However, such a system does not work in all the countries, and in most of them there is a bar association exercising the main function of controlling the quality of the lawyers in the market. [read post]
FDA sends warning letters to infant formula manufacturers, unveils Cronobacter history in facilities
31 Aug 2023, 6:13 am
Some of the significant violations are as follows: 1. [read post]
26 Sep 2013, 6:05 am
Section 512(c)(1)(A) protects a service provider who: does not have “actual knowledge” of the infringing material or activity using the material;7 in the absence of such knowledge, “is not aware of facts or circumstances from which the infringing activity is apparent,”;8 or upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access, to the material.9 In addition to the knowledge-based framework above, § 512(c) states… [read post]
31 Oct 2024, 4:57 pm
The case was first distributed for the conference of Oct. 27, 2023, just over one year ago. [read post]
19 Feb 2019, 7:01 am
” The EDPB does not elaborate as to what type of scenario falls under the second legal basis. [read post]
Defamation Act 2013: A summary and overview six years on, Part 1, Sections 1 to 3 – Brett Wilson LLP
28 Jan 2020, 4:39 pm
In Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd & Anor [2019] UKSC 27 (see our blog here) it held that the meaning of section 1(1) is such that the question of whether serious harm has been suffered must be determined by reference to actual facts – the impact of the statement – not just the meaning of the words. [read post]
2 Dec 2009, 1:28 pm
Item 1 ofSchedule 1 [read post]
12 Oct 2010, 9:41 am
Brown’s lethal injection, has an expiration date of October 1, 2010. [read post]
14 Nov 2011, 9:06 pm
That doesn’t sound very non-threatening to sovereignty, does it? [read post]
7 Feb 2018, 12:00 am
CONCISE SUMMARIES OF THE CONTENTS OF THEThe Discipline BookA guide to disciplinary actions involving public officers and employees in New York State with end notes.For more information about this 458 page handbook, click on http://booklocker.com/books/5215.htmlA Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances A handbook focusing on appealing penalties imposed following disciplinary action, adverse performance ratings, probationary terminations and the denial of unemployment insurance… [read post]
4 Mar 2010, 3:02 pm
Moreover, the requirements for an admissible opposition are determined pursuant to A 99, R 76(2)(c), and R 77(1), whereas the effectiveness of a transfer of the opponent status is governed by the criteria developed in the established case law. [read post]
3 Mar 2008, 5:53 am
Does 1-17*Exhibit G - RIAA surreply brief in Arista v. [read post]
31 Mar 2011, 3:01 pm
”Here is what the Board had to say:Preliminary remarks[1] According to the European Patent Bulletin 2005/32 of 10 August 2005 and the decision of the opposition division of 27 November 2009, XIRING was the patent proprietor. [read post]
4 Feb 2025, 9:01 pm
Rome Statute, art. 89(1). [read post]
