Search for: "DOES I-X" Results 4701 - 4720 of 7,338
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Jan 2012, 6:31 am by familoo
So, how does it fare on the “novel” front? [read post]
15 Jan 2012, 8:35 pm by Lawrence Solum
Moore's argument is based on the idea that an assertion that "x is good" if and only if "x is pleasurable" is a claim about meaning. [read post]
12 Jan 2012, 1:15 pm by Bexis
  Utah law does not preclude strict liability design defect claims against medical product manufacturers.2012 WL 33360, at *5 n.6. [read post]
12 Jan 2012, 1:04 pm by Adam Wagner
Presenting the figures in this way is a bit like watching X-Factor from the live finals, which begin with 12 contestants, and extrapolating that since one of them wins in the end, therefore almost 10% of X-Factor applicants ultimately win the contest. [read post]
11 Jan 2012, 7:21 pm by Michael Webster
Recently, I was asked: "If you could negotiate any terms up front, what would be the key ones? [read post]
11 Jan 2012, 5:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
The V2/V1 values smaller than 50% mentioned in D2 (tables I and II) only concern the comparative products (“PC1” and “PC2”) and do not disclose the whole set of features of the product according to claim 1 of the patent under consideration […].[15.1.1] According to the established case law of the Boards of appeal, including decision T 240/95 [4.2, 3rd §], a numerical range expressed as “from x to y” effectively constitutes a… [read post]
9 Jan 2012, 1:12 pm
This certainly does not appear to be a big deal. [read post]
9 Jan 2012, 9:06 am by Schachtman
FW: Defendants’ Petition for Certiorari in Milward – DENIED Inbox x Nathan A. [read post]
7 Jan 2012, 2:04 am by INFORRM
The reporter promised X his undertaking of confidentiality would remain so long as McIntosh was convinced that X had not deliberately misled him. [read post]
6 Jan 2012, 2:27 pm by Laura Orr
The current draft minutes (from the December 2011 meeting) are dense, informative, and dare I say absorbing. [read post]
6 Jan 2012, 4:26 am by Leslie Sammis
It is not a violation of the state’s criminal laws for 40 a patient or primary caregiver to engage or assist in the 41 medical use of cannabis pursuant to this section, except as 42 otherwise provided in subsections (g) and (i). 43 (c)? [read post]