Search for: "1-16 Does"
Results 441 - 460
of 18,933
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Dec 2021, 4:41 pm
Clause 16(1)(e) also allows the social media service provider to remove the comment(s) complained of if the commenter consents to such action being taken. [read post]
27 Apr 2014, 7:10 am
This principle is embedded in Article 16 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. [read post]
30 Apr 2022, 7:30 am
Iss. (2021)- Author = Kenya- Note: This journal does not require payment of an APC but it does levy page fees of ZAR 400 per page. [read post]
7 Nov 2017, 9:06 am
The examiner rejected claims 1, 3– 6, 9–11, 13–16, 19, and 20 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
18 Jul 2013, 3:10 am
By Eric Goldman 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Apr 2017, 8:44 pm
Does your client have a right to view the evidence against him/her? [read post]
26 Dec 2016, 5:00 am
The new law does not change minimum wage exemptions or regulations regarding overtime pay. [read post]
20 Feb 2024, 1:31 pm
First degree rape 16. [read post]
16 Sep 2013, 6:48 am
Does Ramzi Bin al-Shibh? [read post]
17 Jun 2009, 8:43 am
At no time was PLAINTIFF DOE 1 employed as a stripper. 11. [read post]
26 Feb 2008, 9:32 am
Why, then, does the NCMEC do it? [read post]
23 Mar 2008, 10:18 am
Why, then, does the NCMEC do it? [read post]
20 Jul 2014, 11:10 pm
Here is an (unofficial) translation: May the consumer in accordance with Art. 16(1) Brussels I-Regulation sue in the state where he is domiciled if the contract that is the immediate basis for the claim was not concluded under the conditions set out in Art. 15(1) lit. c) Brussels I Regulation, but serves to ensure the economic success of another contract concluded between the same parties under the conditions set out in Art. 15(1) lit. c) Brussels… [read post]
15 Jun 2017, 9:02 am
AlthoughVolkswagen’s petition stated broadly that “[c]laims 1–14and 16–20 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
31 Jan 2018, 5:13 pm
As to the outcome:The Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the rejectionof claims 1–16, 19–22, and 25–33 of U.S. [read post]
29 May 2018, 5:54 pm
We reverse as to claim 1, vacateas to claims 2–16, and remand for determination of patentabilityof claims 2–16.Relevant prior art was US 6,952,408, which had claim 1, which began1. [read post]
15 Jun 2015, 6:00 am
If enacted, the amendments would become effective on August 1, 2015. [read post]
16 Apr 2024, 6:30 am
Posted by Edna Twumwaa Frimpong and Dottie Schindlinger, Diligent Institute, and Derek Vadala, Bitsight, on Tuesday, April 16, 2024 Editor's Note: Edna Twumwaa Frimpong is Director of International Research and Dottie Schindlinger is Executive Director at Diligent Institute; and Derek Vadala is Chief Risk Officer at Bitsight. [read post]
16 Apr 2024, 6:30 am
Posted by Edna Twumwaa Frimpong and Dottie Schindlinger, Diligent Institute, and Derek Vadala, Bitsight, on Tuesday, April 16, 2024 Editor's Note: Edna Twumwaa Frimpong is Director of International Research and Dottie Schindlinger is Executive Director at Diligent Institute; and Derek Vadala is Chief Risk Officer at Bitsight. [read post]
5 Jul 2014, 8:47 am
”Trebro Mfg., Inc. at *10 (citation omitted).Claim 1Claim 1 is pertinent for this appeal: 1. [read post]
