Search for: "MATTER OF T B"
Results 561 - 580
of 20,081
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Nov 2010, 1:08 am
., J. discusses what to do when the defendant can't be identified, or served within a 120 day period. [read post]
12 Mar 2011, 11:01 am
Claim 1 of the patent as granted read:A process for making a viscous reaction product and making this into a solid component, comprising the steps of: a) reacting at least two compounds with one another to form a first active material to form a viscous mixed product which has a viscosity of at least 500cps or even at least 1000cps at 20°C, and mixing this with a second active material that is a perfume mix; b) mixing the product of step a) with a liquid carrier material, whereby step… [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 3:01 pm
The primary immunogenicity endpoints were measured at weeks 26 and 28 by the quantification of T cell responses […]. [read post]
9 Jan 2019, 1:41 am
The first intervener invoked the grounds for opposition pursuant to Article 100(a), (b) and (c) EPC. [read post]
12 May 2014, 4:47 am
A non-party to this matter (“AT & T”) filed an application with defendant Mobile City, Alabama Planning Commission (“Commission”) for a new wireless telecommunication facility to be built on a site leased by AT & T. [read post]
22 Apr 2015, 5:01 am
What can B pass to B’s heirs? [read post]
3 Jul 2017, 8:31 am
While the former might be a matter of public concern, “certification of commercial products—the activities that [the plaintiff] seeks to enjoin”—didn’t further such speech, because the protected conduct, articulating a standard, would be complete before any authorization occurred. [read post]
3 Sep 2014, 6:16 pm
And then there’s the matter of T-Mobile’s size. [read post]
10 May 2017, 11:48 am
(I also thought that the relevant joke was appalling, but that should be a matter of taste and judgment, not of illegality.) [read post]
10 Nov 2009, 10:08 am
Jim _________________________________________ James B. [read post]
11 Mar 2008, 11:19 pm
I think this is right: the means of committing the offense normally shouldn't matter. [read post]
28 May 2011, 5:39 am
As he said in A v B, “The [public figure] should recognise that because of his public position he must expect and accept that his actions will be more closely scrutinised by the media. [read post]
26 Jan 2015, 4:09 am
Remember that this is an anecdote and is not necessarily representative of all physicians that become involved in industrial medicine.But it is a troubling anecdote nevertheless.I don't think it's just a matter of education. [read post]
23 Sep 2008, 3:00 pm
ExpressBuzz has a report including the text:After receiving a number of complaints against Dr Venkataramappa for plagiarism, under the guidance of Dr B C Mylarappa, who was then a Professor at Department of Sociology, Bangalore University, Governor T N Chaturvedi had constituted an inquiry committee headed by retired IAS officer K V Irniraya. [read post]
6 Nov 2012, 5:01 pm
NB: T 1764/06 has been discussed on this blog (here).Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here.The file wrapper can be found here. [read post]
26 Dec 2012, 5:01 pm
Thus the disputed matter (Streitstoff) that is relevant for the appeal proceedings results from the SGA and the corresponding reply. [read post]
11 Sep 2011, 5:01 pm
As a matter of fact, no “fresh case” should be brought (B. [read post]
3 Jan 2017, 7:00 am
Although MS was traditionally considered a T-cell mediated disease, accumulating evidence suggests that B cells play a role. [read post]
4 Oct 2010, 2:17 pm
If that didn’t work I could just frankly admit that my intentions are pure: “The court is mistaken, I am not flirting, I am merely attempting horizontal bribery” When my efforts to seduce the truth fail, I can just fall back on the things that define a component lawyer, that being knowledge of the law:“The law on this issue is clearly establishes that the Plaintiff is a whiny bitch” No matter what happens, there is one thing that even I… [read post]
2 Jun 2010, 3:02 pm
According to the opponents, that case was similar to the present one. [11.9] The case law also mentions decision T 168/99 [1], in which it was decided that withdrawal of subject-matter (there, of the granted claims before the OD had commented on them) did not necessarily mean that it had formally been abandoned. [read post]
