Search for: "Companies A, B, and C"
Results 6161 - 6180
of 12,894
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Jun 2015, 4:18 am
"4) The company established its own pharmacy benefit network with its own formulary. [read post]
11 Jun 2015, 3:25 pm
Conversely, if a document is excluded from consideration as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C), it cannot be considered prior art for any novelty or nonobviousness purposes. [read post]
11 Jun 2015, 3:25 pm
Conversely, if a document is excluded from consideration as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C), it cannot be considered prior art for any novelty or nonobviousness purposes. [read post]
11 Jun 2015, 3:25 pm
Conversely, if a document is excluded from consideration as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C), it cannot be considered prior art for any novelty or nonobviousness purposes. [read post]
11 Jun 2015, 9:08 am
However, the law cited above does state that while you are pursuing a claim, your employer can fire you for other reasons, most commonly: a) intoxication on the job; b) destruction of the employer’s property; c) habitual tardiness or absence from work; d) failure to meet established employer work standards; e) malingering; or f) embezzlement. [read post]
11 Jun 2015, 9:08 am
However, the law cited above does state that while you are pursuing a claim, your employer can fire you for other reasons, most commonly: a) intoxication on the job; b) destruction of the employer’s property; c) habitual tardiness or absence from work; d) failure to meet established employer work standards; e) malingering; or f) embezzlement. [read post]
11 Jun 2015, 9:08 am
However, the law cited above does state that while you are pursuing a claim, your employer can fire you for other reasons, most commonly: a) intoxication on the job; b) destruction of the employer’s property; c) habitual tardiness or absence from work; d) failure to meet established employer work standards; e) malingering; or f) embezzlement. [read post]
11 Jun 2015, 7:01 am
[I]n approximately two months' time, [personnel from a respondent who was terminated through a consent order] (a) left [the terminated respondent], (b) created a toner cartridge manufacturing facility in Jiangxi, China, which could reportedly produce about 300,000 toner cartridges per month, (c) created a global sales and marketing center in Sanxiang, Zhongshan (China), and (d) created a U.S. importer and distributor for [a new group of respondents'] toner-cartridges. . .… [read post]
10 Jun 2015, 3:37 pm
The New York case of Travelers Indemnity Company, cited above, was decided in 1962. [read post]
10 Jun 2015, 5:00 am
Code] § 1030(a)(2)(C) and the Eighth Circuit Model Jury Instruction. [read post]
8 Jun 2015, 2:08 pm
The project is a partnership among AltaGas GP, AltaGas Idemitsu Joint Venture Limited Partnership, a partnership between AltaGas Ltd. and Japanese company Idemitsu Kosan Co., Ltd., Belgium-based EXMAR NV, and French company EDF Trading Limited. [read post]
8 Jun 2015, 12:22 am
This Kat posted a short report of the Court of Appeal, England and Wales, judgment delivered by Lord Justice Floyd in Warner-Lambert Company, LLC v Actavis Group Ptc EHF & Others [2015] EWCA Civ 556, and has in the meantime been cogitating and ruminating (hard as that is for a non-ruminant carnivore) on what it all means.To remind readers on where we were before this appeal decision, Warner-Lambert marketed the drug pregabalin for three authorised indications -- epilepsy,… [read post]
7 Jun 2015, 6:10 pm
(f) He signed corporate documents for a company now owned by her Estate prior to July 31, 2011. [read post]
5 Jun 2015, 1:20 pm
§ 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). [read post]
4 Jun 2015, 3:56 pm
(b) Does it make any difference if the work was also not previously communicated, with the rightholder’s consent, to the public in some other way? [read post]
4 Jun 2015, 2:25 am
(b) Does it make any difference if the work was also not previously communicated, with the rightholder’s consent, to the public in some other way? [read post]
3 Jun 2015, 10:29 pm
If A sends a letter to B, asking him to deliver a package to C at a particular address, the contents of that letter are contents from A to B but mere non-content addressing information with respect to the delivery of the package to C. [read post]
3 Jun 2015, 1:08 pm
The oral advocacy program at Pace Law School is a robust one as students have the opportunity to learn and practice oral advocacy skills by participating in the mock trial advocacy and/or the moot court competitions. [read post]
2 Jun 2015, 4:56 am
" The court set out the standards under Texas law for third party beneficiary status:(a) the claimant was not privy to the written agreement between the insured and insurer; (b) the contract was made at least in part for the claimant's benefit; and (c) the contracting parties intended for the claimant to benefit by the written agreement. [read post]
1 Jun 2015, 12:38 pm
Summary of the facts of the case The parent company C Ltd., Rotterdam (the Netherlands), filed a claim in the debt-restructuring moratorium over the company B Ltd., Zug (Switzerland). [read post]
