Search for: "J. DOE # 1" Results 441 - 460 of 14,529
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
  The proclamation does not affect petitions or applications filed in the United States, even if they are filed to change to H-1B, H-2B, H-4, L-1, L-2, J-1 or J-2 status. [read post]
26 Jun 2014, 12:47 pm by David Post
Aereo was always going to come down to a battle of two metaphors: 1. [read post]
1 Feb 2012, 2:59 am by war
(Rares J’s emphasis) and 57 The Minister then explained in the Senate, repeating the words of the Further Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum, why cl 111(1) had been reworded saying (ibid): “This relates to time shifting. [read post]
24 Jun 2014, 8:38 am by Kate Fort
No child is hurt by applying higher standards to their case, even if it ends up ICWA ultimately does not apply. [read post]
29 Sep 2010, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
This interpretation conforms with the view of the Legal Board of Appeal in decision J 18/04 according to which the term “pending … patent application” in R 25 EPC 1973 does not establish a time limit, but rather a substantive requirement (J 18/04 [7 ff.]). [3.2.5] Clearly, the pending status of an earlier European patent application does not mean that a divisional application relating to it can always be filed. [read post]
5 Nov 2014, 4:36 am
Conclude the judge: "M & S has infringed the Trade Marks under Article 5(1)(a) of the Directive and Article 9(1)(a) of the Regulation".Today, the Court of Appeal for England and Wales (Lords Justices Patten and Kitchin and Sir Colin Rimer) at [2014] EWCA Civ 1403, this being an appeal against Arnold J's decision in [2013] EWHC 1291 (Ch). [read post]
2 Jul 2008, 11:22 pm
How does Weldon describe how J&J pursues innovation? [read post]
21 Jan 2024, 9:05 pm by renholding
The SEC has frequently used Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, a provision that applies not only to the “sale” of securities but also more broadly to “offers” to sell securities.[6]  While termination of a Rule 10b5-1 plan does not constitute fraudulent conduct within the meaning of Rule 10b-5 because it does not involve an actual purchase or sale of a security, the same issue does not exist with respect to Section 17(a)… [read post]