Search for: "Does 1 - 38"
Results 541 - 560
of 4,920
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 May 2010, 7:06 am
This occurred on July 1, 1999. [read post]
3 Jul 2019, 4:00 am
For this last week: 1. [read post]
11 Oct 2023, 1:23 am
Does the EPC confer jurisdiction on the EPO to determine whether a party validly claims to be a successor in title as referred to in Article 87(1)(b) EPC? [read post]
17 Feb 2011, 2:35 pm
The table below suggests that where people work (or want to work) does not depend on how much they have in outstanding student loans: Amount of debtLaw firmGovernmentIn-housePublic interestOtherUnemployed or under-employedNone72%12%8%3%5%0%$1-49,99973%12%7%2%6%1%$50,000-99,99973%12%6%2%7%0%$100,000 or more70%12%5%3%6%3% Let’s look at the results another way, namely, how the amount of outstanding student loans varies by type of legal employment: Amount of debtLaw… [read post]
22 Nov 2019, 1:01 am
The board does not share the views of the Examining division, and concludes that the claim has sufficient technical elements that improve the security of the hardcopy certificate. [read post]
23 Jun 2017, 12:20 am
" [para 38, the latter being possibly the case of the mark at issue]AG Szpunar concluded that it is necessary "in examining the essential characteristics of the contested mark, to take into account the colour as well as the other aspects of the goods in question. [read post]
7 Dec 2023, 2:14 pm
As of today, Dec. 7, 230 people across 38 states have been infected. [read post]
17 Nov 2021, 11:35 am
In its first update since Oct. 29, the CDC reports there are at least 892 people sick across 38 states and Puerto Rico. [read post]
29 Apr 2010, 6:18 am
For this purpose, "child" is defined under section 152(f)(1). [read post]
21 Aug 2017, 11:20 pm
Under what circumstances does common general knowledge require proof? [read post]
21 Apr 2016, 11:39 am
So the services are identical, satisfying this element of the S34(1)(a) infringement test. [read post]
28 May 2019, 3:45 am
Does the finding that (a disclosure in) a prior art document D1 does not qualify as an accidental anticipation (thus not allowing the use of an undisclosed disclaimer) because it does not fulfill the criterion laid down in G 1/03 that it is so unrelated to and remote from the claimed invention that the skilled person would never have taken it into consideration when making the invention, imply that it is automatically relevant for inventive step? [read post]
16 Jul 2010, 3:00 am
Dist., 954 S.W.2d 36, 38 (Tenn. 1997), not to add a new party who was simply overlooked. [read post]
4 Sep 2012, 8:56 pm
But what does it say? [read post]
18 Jun 2007, 8:58 am
Brendlin, 38 Cal. 4th 1107, 45 Cal. [read post]
26 Nov 2014, 9:01 pm
’774 patent col. 2 l. 58–col. 4 l. 38 (ex parte reexamination certificate). [read post]
28 Jul 2007, 4:38 pm
LEXIS 599 (July 26, 2007): (1) Accommodation by the duration and scope of the traffic stop First, we determine whether any independent factual justification for the canine sweep was even constitutionally necessary. [read post]
4 Feb 2011, 4:02 pm
It concluded that obstacles created in order to hinder access to information of public interest might discourage the media and other public interest organisations from pursuing their vital role as “public watchdogs” [38]. [read post]
12 Nov 2009, 4:07 am
To whom does the company circulate minutes of committee meetings? [read post]
22 Apr 2023, 6:00 am
ENTERED: April 18, 2023 Footnotes Footnote 1: Defendants John/Jane Does I-XX have not appeared in this action or sought representation from the Attorney General. [read post]
