Search for: "Does 1-30" Results 5141 - 5160 of 27,666
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Dec 2011, 4:55 am by Dianne Saxe
So countries promise to agree to promise to do what they promise (if everyone else does too). [read post]
30 Oct 2017, 3:54 am
"[1] The authors represented petitioner Cray Inc. in this [read post]
12 Feb 2021, 12:20 pm by David Cosgrove
” A conviction under section 432.7 does not require an entry of judgment; it simply requires entry of a guilty plea. [read post]
22 Feb 2023, 1:07 pm by Dennis Crouch
  Stroud is General Counsel at Unified Patents – an organization often adverse to litigation-funded entities.[1] He is also an adjunct professor at American University Washington College of Law. [read post]
28 Jan 2020, 2:28 am by Roel van Woudenberg
            On 25.10.2019, the applicant submitted further argumentation in support of accepting a machine as the inventor, arguing Rule 19(1) EPC does not require that the inventor is a human and explaining that the purpose of Rule 19(1) EPC is to properly identify the inventor. [read post]
19 Jul 2018, 8:00 am by Shawn Butte
Although the bill does not go into effect until July 1, 2019, employers should be prepared to understand the various requirements, including when an employee may take paid leave and the notice requirements for doing so. [read post]
19 Jul 2018, 8:00 am by Shawn Butte
Although the bill does not go into effect until July 1, 2019, employers should be prepared to understand the various requirements, including when an employee may take paid leave and the notice requirements for doing so. [read post]
6 Oct 2023, 6:17 pm by Anthony Zaller
  The law requires employers of all sizes to provide 1 hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked to employees who worked for the employer for 30 or more days. [read post]
18 Aug 2010, 8:49 am by Tyler Anderson
In its order, the court directed the plaintiffs to specify the manner of discovery (how and when the plaintiffs actually discovered the fraud or mistake) within 14 days of the July 30 order in an amended complaint. [read post]
7 Jun 2011, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
Also this argument must therefore fail. [14] Accordingly and in view of the above considerations the board decides that claim 1 does not meet the requirements of A 123(2). [read post]
2 Jan 2019, 4:00 am by Malcolm Mercer
In Ontario, this started to change about 30 years ago when the Court of Appeal for Ontario determined in Regina v. [read post]
1 May 2015, 5:41 am by Steven D. Silverman
It will be interesting to see what the Judge does Monday because many of the “rioters” received bails ranging from $350k-500K. [read post]