Search for: "DOES 1-98 " Results 841 - 860 of 2,183
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 May 2017, 11:15 pm by Roel van Woudenberg
G 1/15 gives guidance that this is to be done both in accordance with the disclosure test laid down in the conclusion of G 2/98, and on the basis of explanations put forward by the applicant or patent proprietor to support its claim to priority, in order t [read post]
24 May 2017, 7:10 am by CharlieStrickler
Wello has another product that does a retina scan of employees as they "clock in" to measure their core body temperature. [read post]
24 May 2017, 7:10 am by CharlieStrickler
Wello has another product that does a retina scan of employees as they "clock in" to measure their core body temperature. [read post]
24 May 2017, 3:48 am by Hon. Richard G. Kopf
Kopf Senior United States District Judge (Nebraska) [1] In tables 7 and 8, “Gov’t below”: (a) includes §5K1.1 Substantial Assistance Departures, §5K3.1 Early Disposition Program Departures and other government-sponsored below-range sentences; (b) does not include Rule 35 reductions for cooperation with the government that take place after sentencing. [read post]
19 May 2017, 7:10 am by Nico Cordes
Hätte die Kammer das zum Ausdruck bringen wollen, hätte sie "does not" statt "may not" geschrieben.Der Wesentlichkeitstest wurde in der Folge oft angewandt und fand auch in jüngerer Zeit noch manchmal Verwendung. [read post]
15 May 2017, 7:56 am by Derek T. Muller
It does not include clerkships obtained by students after graduation; it only includes clerkships obtained by each year's graduating class.I included some schools that had only one or two year's worth of data, like the separate Penn State schools. [read post]
9 May 2017, 5:45 am by Michael Wysocki
—Beaumont 1993, no writ). [5] In re L.R.P., 98 S.W.3d 312, 313-15 (Tex. [read post]
9 May 2017, 5:45 am by Michael Wysocki
—Beaumont 1993, no writ). [5] In re L.R.P., 98 S.W.3d 312, 313-15 (Tex. [read post]
3 May 2017, 1:05 pm
Co., 434 U.S. 159, 172, 98 S.Ct. 364, 54 L.Ed.2d 376 (1977).Id. at 244.The court then began its analysis of Doe’s All Writs Act argument, explaining, initially, thatDoe contends that the Magistrate Judge did not have subject matter jurisdiction to issue the Decryption Order because the Government should have compelled his compliance by means of the grand jury procedure and not the All Writs Act. [read post]
25 Apr 2017, 4:47 am by Romano Beitsma
The documents cited in this decision are the following:E2: WO-A-98/55168E4: US-B-6338200E5: WO-A-01/91833DIN 8593-0.IV. [read post]
23 Apr 2017, 1:18 pm
Cratsley submits that New York law does not place a legal duty upon an individual who lacks control over the third party's actions. [read post]
15 Apr 2017, 5:16 pm by Jon Katz
Bacigal, Virginia Practice Series: Criminal Procedure § 4:10, at 98 & n.5 (2016-2017 ed.) [read post]