Search for: "DOES 1-116" Results 441 - 460 of 1,188
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Jun 2018, 2:30 am by Colby Pastre
First, the data only provides information about household purchases from retailers, and does not include expenditures at other types of establishments. [read post]
4 Jun 2018, 3:17 am by Roel van Woudenberg
The Opposition Division decided that:- the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request (patent as granted) was not new (Articles 100(a), 52(1) and 54 EPC);- the claimed subject-matter of auxiliary requests I and II failed to meet the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC;- auxiliary request III was not admitted into the proceedings pursuant to Rule 116 EPC; and- account being taken of the amendments made by the proprietor during the opposition proceedings (according to… [read post]
1 Jun 2018, 2:08 pm by admin
Conclusion – Part 1 Part 1 of this blog post on private corporation mergers and acquisitions in Canada, focuses on the preliminary or initial steps necessary to conclude a successful M&A transaction. [read post]
1 Jun 2018, 4:35 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Merely alleging the elements of a legal malpractice claim in a general fashion, without more, does not satisfy the liberal pleading standard of CPLR 3211. [read post]
29 May 2018, 12:44 pm by Orin Kerr
The suggestion that the defendant was compelled to give evidence against himself does not require an answer. [read post]
29 May 2018, 3:26 am by Sander van Rijnswou
Moreover, the documents filed after the Rule 116 EPC time limit were filed long enough in advance of the oral proceedings that none of the parties could convincingly argue and did not argue that they did not have time to prepare for the discussion of the documents during the oral proceedings. [read post]
15 May 2018, 7:25 am by Guido Paola
The respondent opponent 1 had requested in writing that the appeal be dismissed. [read post]
15 May 2018, 7:25 am by Guido Paola
The respondent opponent 1 had requested in writing that the appeal be dismissed. [read post]
12 May 2018, 4:56 pm by Schachtman
Browne does not offer an affirmative response such as urging courts to adopt a Bayesian program. [read post]
3 May 2018, 4:42 pm by INFORRM
Facebook has earmarked $1 billion to commission original content this year. [read post]
3 May 2018, 11:23 am by Cullie Burris
For example lying to Medicare does not constitute any breach of public trust. [read post]
3 May 2018, 11:02 am by Dennis Crouch
Rather, VerHoef admitted that the figure-eight design (1) was contributed by Lamb and (2) is an “essential feature” of the invention. [read post]
30 Apr 2018, 10:29 am by Graham Smith
Facebook has earmarked $1 billion to commission original content this year. [read post]
18 Apr 2018, 2:25 pm
Does the English Court have jurisdiction to grant relief in the form of a global FRAND licence in relation to a claim for infringement of UK patents, where UK sales account for only 1% or less of worldwide sales on which royalties are claimed? [read post]
17 Apr 2018, 2:07 am by Diane Tweedlie
The application was refused by the examining division because the applicant's main request did not meet the requirements of Article 83 EPC and Rule 42(1)(c) EPC.Auxiliary requests 1 - 3, which were filed during the oral proceedings before the examining division, were not admitted into the procedure because they were considered to contravene Rule 137(3) EPC and Rule 116(1) EPC.III. [read post]
17 Apr 2018, 2:07 am by Diane Tweedlie
The application was refused by the examining division because the applicant's main request did not meet the requirements of Article 83 EPC and Rule 42(1)(c) EPC.Auxiliary requests 1 - 3, which were filed during the oral proceedings before the examining division, were not admitted into the procedure because they were considered to contravene Rule 137(3) EPC and Rule 116(1) EPC.III. [read post]
13 Apr 2018, 4:10 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
A cause of action alleging a violation of Judiciary Law § 487 must be pleaded with specificity (see Betz v Blatt, 116 AD3d at 817; Putnam County Temple & Jewish Ctr., Inc. v Rhinebeck Sav. [read post]