Search for: "Does 1 - 33"
Results 861 - 880
of 6,074
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Dec 2016, 12:00 am
Hence the nine-month opposition period under Article 99(1) EPC ended on Thursday 22 May 2008. [read post]
28 Dec 2018, 4:14 pm
In a unanimous 33-page opinion authored by Justice Ming Chin and issued on December 24, 2018, the California Supreme Court addressed the standard of review for claims challenging the legal sufficiency of an EIR’s discussion of environmental impacts, and also CEQA’s rules regarding deferral and adequacy of mitigation measures. [read post]
30 Jan 2007, 2:49 pm
Does 1-33 (Knoxville, TN)TexasArista Records v. [read post]
22 Jun 2010, 11:14 am
App.4th ____, a group of public agencies, water contractors, and farmers filed a petition for writ of mandate against the State Water Resources Control Board (“State Board”) by under the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. [read post]
24 Mar 2015, 5:00 am
“Jane Doe #1 allegedly woke up naked hours later with Sharper sexually assaulting her. [read post]
30 Mar 2017, 9:21 am
Nonetheless, it does serve as a reminder that when a party recognizes an omission or mistake in an instrument affecting mineral rights, a party should not immediately opt for an easy fix via a notarial act of correction. [read post]
30 Mar 2017, 9:21 am
Nonetheless, it does serve as a reminder that when a party recognizes an omission or mistake in an instrument affecting mineral rights, a party should not immediately opt for an easy fix via a notarial act of correction. [read post]
30 Mar 2017, 9:21 am
Nonetheless, it does serve as a reminder that when a party recognizes an omission or mistake in an instrument affecting mineral rights, a party should not immediately opt for an easy fix via a notarial act of correction. [read post]
29 Nov 2008, 5:15 pm
It is OK to follow such "polls" as long as one does not take them seriously. [read post]
22 Feb 2016, 10:31 am
We conclude that the CFC erred in holding reissue claims 1–22 and 33–38 invalid for failure to meet the written description requirement of section 112. [read post]
11 Jan 2015, 5:27 pm
But I used to say my specialty was “entry law” and people would always look at me quizzically like what does that mean? [read post]
22 Mar 2018, 2:41 pm
Deregulation Act 2015 section 41(3) provides (in regard to sections 33-38 and 40) At the end of the period of three years beginning with the coming into force of a provision of sections 33 to 38 or section 40, that provision also applies to any assured shorthold tenancy of a dwelling-house in England— (a) which is in existence at that time, and (b) to which that provision does not otherwise apply by virtue of subsection (1) or (2). [read post]
16 Dec 2021, 3:50 am
Estonia does not levy any other type of property tax covered in the ITCI. [read post]
26 Sep 2013, 5:29 am
The broadest rules change is a revision to Rule 26(b)(1), which re-defines the scope of discovery. [read post]
21 Sep 2015, 2:01 am
Even if no sale or actual delivery of infringing goods actually occurred, the fact that the consumers were invited, by targeted advertising, to acquire ownership of the original or copy of the work in question, would suffice to trigger application of Article 4(1).What does this ruling mean? [read post]
3 Apr 2017, 7:10 am
" [Article 1(2)]The question that arises - and has actually arisen - is who is responsible for paying such royalty.The Resal Right Directive - in my view and contrary to the reasons for harmonization within Recital 9 - fails to provide a uniform response, in that Article 1(4) therein does not really mandate a harmonized approach at the level of individual Member States. [read post]
18 Apr 2018, 8:07 pm
"Design choice" arose:On appeal, Philips does not dispute the Board’s findingthat the invention in claim 1 of the ’988 patent isdisclosed by the combination of Hochstein and Hildebrand—i.e. [read post]
3 Feb 2022, 6:49 pm
” McDonald, 2022 IL 126511, ¶ 24 (quoting Rosenbach, 2019 IL 123186, ¶ 33). [read post]
2 Jul 2024, 7:55 am
” Step 1. [read post]
29 Jun 2020, 5:57 am
She sued the doctor for medical malpractice and, after ruling in her favor on liability, the Queens County jury awarded pain and suffering damages in the sum of $2,500,000 ($1,500,000 past – 2 3/4 years, $1,000,000 future – 33 1/2 years). [read post]
