Search for: "DOES 1-9"
Results 601 - 620
of 27,545
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jun 2019, 8:24 pm
Alberta (aff’d ABCA; leave to appeal to SCC refused) as justified under s. 1 [56] The objective of the age requirement is similarly clear if one considers that, in the absence of an age requirement, babies meeting the citizenship and residency requirements would be eligible to vote. [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 1:04 pm
Personal Information, Privacy and the Internet: An Overview (1 hour) Why Privacy Matters in the Internet Age – Or Does It? [read post]
5 Apr 2022, 11:32 am
Here, claim 1 does not require a multi-piece arrangement. [read post]
15 Jul 2011, 6:09 am
Does 1–9, No. 04–Civ–2289, 2004 WL 2095581 (S.D.N.Y. [read post]
24 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm
Moreover, the patent proprietor has consistently requested accelerated proceedings.On the other hand, the fact that the OD has not allowed the request of opponent 1 for a stay of the proceedings and has not cancelled the OPs foreseen on April 18, 2012, after opponent 1 had filed the statement of grounds in appeal case T 112/12 does not justify the suspicion of partiality on behalf of the OD. [read post]
29 Sep 2011, 5:25 pm
$9! [read post]
20 Jan 2011, 1:55 pm
For now, I'm going to stick with the comments I made in footnote 9 of the amicus brief I just posted. [read post]
23 Sep 2013, 5:52 pm
” Plantronics, at *8-9.... in view of the Specification“Like the claim language, the specification of the ’453 patent does not limit the claimed apparatus to any particular structure. [read post]
5 Apr 2016, 2:02 pm
Although theBoard decision does not directly state that it consideredthe evidence relating to claim 9, that evidence is almostidentical to the evidence that HP presented with respectto claim 13. [read post]
28 Dec 2011, 5:01 pm
Thus, in the board’s view, Article 12(4) RPBA, first half sentence does not apply here, but Article 12(4) RPBA, second half sentence is to be considered. [read post]
15 Jul 2011, 10:12 pm
Per a Connecticut appeals court, looking at an employee and saying “Bang bang” does not, even when added to some other impolite conduct, rise to the level of “extreme and outrageous” behavior required to trigger a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress [Daniel Schwartz] Tags: Connecticut, emotional distress, workplace Related posts September 9 roundup (6) October 2000 archives, part 2 (1) May 2002 archives, part 1… [read post]
1 Feb 2010, 6:06 pm
Louis semi truck accident attorneys’ own backyard Feb. 1. [read post]
10 Jun 2010, 8:05 am
June 9, 2010). [read post]
7 Nov 2017, 9:06 am
The examiner rejected claims 1, 3– 6, 9–11, 13–16, 19, and 20 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
12 Oct 2020, 8:06 am
Which employees does it apply to? [read post]
8 Jun 2022, 9:02 am
See 9 U.S.C. [read post]
8 May 2016, 11:48 am
"AG Wathelet, based on his construction of Articles 9(1) and (3), 14(1) and 101(2) of Regulation no. 207/2009, was of the view the mark did not enjoy protection for the period between the filing date and the date of publication. [read post]
13 Sep 2009, 8:57 pm
., at 1, 2]. [read post]
18 Mar 2019, 7:56 am
Oregon (1972), the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment requires unanimity for a verdict — but that the Fourteenth Amendment does not carry this rule over to the states, and that even 9–3 verdicts are constitutionally permissible. [read post]
29 Sep 2019, 9:09 am
The EPO is in a celebratory mood (Source: Twitter)Observation #1: who contributes in IPR-intensive industries? [read post]
