Search for: "Does 1 - 57"
Results 461 - 480
of 3,069
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Nov 2020, 10:33 am
los idiotas que contrata el estado son de Ripley, dijo esa mujer apellidarse "Claro"4) Finalmente NO me dicen que documentos necesitan, NO TENGO9 DINERO PARA CUBRIR COSTOS DE CERTIFICADOS MÉDICOS, MENOS PRESENTAR UNO "BAMBA".Se robarán los 3200 millones que aun deben pagarse, porque muy pocos "beneficiados" protestarán como yo lo hago.LES HE ENVIADO ESTA RESPUESTA:EL RESULTADO DEL SISTEMA ES EL SIGUIENTE:Bono Universal Familiar -… [read post]
4 Jan 2009, 8:20 pm
Does that seem like a lot? [read post]
21 Dec 2017, 4:10 pm
Section 3701(a)(1). [read post]
27 Jan 2012, 2:21 pm
5 (1). [read post]
12 Feb 2007, 8:24 pm
Under In re Nett Designs, Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed. [read post]
1 Sep 2010, 9:00 am
The unanimous Alberta Court of Appeal recently overturned a trial judgment that awarded a terminated employee an additional $1.6 million in damages, beyond the 1 year reasonable notice awarded. [read post]
2 Mar 2021, 4:00 am
The Model Code provides under Rule 5.1-1[1] that a lawyer “has a duty to the client to raise fearlessly every issue, advance every argument and ask every question, however distasteful, that the lawyer thinks will help the client’s case and to endeavour to obtain for the client the benefit of every remedy and defence authorized by law. [read post]
25 Sep 2014, 6:57 am
That’s what a Minnesota statute — now being challenged before the Minnesota Court of Appeals — does: Subdivision 1. [read post]
8 Mar 2015, 6:06 pm
” 2004 CDC Report at 57. [read post]
7 Jul 2016, 11:08 am
Nevertheless, according to the Court, any potential for abuse could be effectively policed through a “diligent application of the ‘honest practices’ proviso” found in section 28(1) of the Singapore Trade Marks Act. [read post]
18 Feb 2021, 1:19 am
FactsIn June 2011, Ascendis Animal Health (Pty) Limited (the applicant) initiated revocation proceedings against Merck Sharp Dohme Corporation and Merial Limited (the respondents) for the annulment and repeal of the Patent 1998/10975 (the patent) in terms of section 61(1) of the Patents Act 57 of 1978 (the Act) because the invention was not patentable under section 25 of the Act as the invention was not new and it lacked an inventive step. [read post]
18 Feb 2021, 1:19 am
FactsIn June 2011, Ascendis Animal Health (Pty) Limited (the applicant) initiated revocation proceedings against Merck Sharp Dohme Corporation and Merial Limited (the respondents) for the annulment and repeal of the Patent 1998/10975 (the patent) in terms of section 61(1) of the Patents Act 57 of 1978 (the Act) because the invention was not patentable under section 25 of the Act as the invention was not new and it lacked an inventive step. [read post]
18 Feb 2021, 1:19 am
FactsIn June 2011, Ascendis Animal Health (Pty) Limited (the applicant) initiated revocation proceedings against Merck Sharp Dohme Corporation and Merial Limited (the respondents) for the annulment and repeal of the Patent 1998/10975 (the patent) in terms of section 61(1) of the Patents Act 57 of 1978 (the Act) because the invention was not patentable under section 25 of the Act as the invention was not new and it lacked an inventive step. [read post]
18 Feb 2021, 1:19 am
FactsIn June 2011, Ascendis Animal Health (Pty) Limited (the applicant) initiated revocation proceedings against Merck Sharp Dohme Corporation and Merial Limited (the respondents) for the annulment and repeal of the Patent 1998/10975 (the patent) in terms of section 61(1) of the Patents Act 57 of 1978 (the Act) because the invention was not patentable under section 25 of the Act as the invention was not new and it lacked an inventive step. [read post]
26 Oct 2016, 2:32 am
AIG’s appeal to the Supreme Court was allowed by a majority of 4 to 1. [read post]
27 Feb 2021, 5:21 am
The High Court decision in Illumina v MGI ([2021] EWHC 57 (Pat) hit the IP headlines for its application of the Supreme Court decision in Regeneron v Kymab ([2020] UKSC 27) (see IPKat: Illumina v MGI Part 1: Mr Justice Birss on sufficiency, DNA sequencing and chocolate teapots). [read post]
6 Nov 2011, 5:53 am
Board Email #1. [read post]
16 Jun 2020, 8:00 am
APC is waived if author does not have access to publishing grant; if author does have access, the APC is US$2000. [read post]
16 Jan 2010, 5:03 am
Appellant's Reply Br. p. 1. [read post]
10 Jan 2012, 6:09 pm
Specifically, ALJ Rogers determined that the accused Nintendo products do not infringe (1) claims 16, 27-32, 44, 57, 68, and 84 of the ‘151 patent, and (2) claims 2, 4, 11, and 14 of the ‘268 patent. [read post]
