Search for: "MATTER OF K A B" Results 921 - 940 of 2,720
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
As a consequence, it also constitutes the “text intended for grant”, so that, if it contains more than 15 claims, claims fees fall due and have to be paid in application of R 71(6).In case (b), however, the ED has to deal with the filed amendments and may have to establish a new communication (Prüfungsbescheid) (R 71(5)). [read post]
19 Oct 2017, 6:32 am by Rebecca Tushnet
In 2016, Siemens obtained FDA clearance to market IMMULITE, under a “substantial equivalence” finding through the Section 510(k) premarket notification process. [read post]
26 Mar 2015, 3:39 pm by Michelle Ball, Attorney for Students
 If one of these cannot be proven, even if the underlying offense can be, the student cannot be expelled (in the non-mandatory expulsion categories).Arguments on these matters should be made at the hearing, and likely will need to be made on appeal to the local County Board of Education if the school expulsion panel/board do not seem to understand the arguments or fail in their proof. [read post]
4 Mar 2015, 3:57 am by David DePaolo
Loss of reputation sustained in the past; k. [read post]
12 Jun 2018, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
  Respondents also object to the fact that the petition does not contain petitioner’s name, telephone number, or post office address as required by 8 NYCRR §275.4(a).As an initial matter, by letter dated January 25, 2016, respondents object to petitioner’s reply, claiming that it contains new material and was not served on their attorney as required by §275.8(b) of the Commissioner’s regulations. [read post]
1 Jan 2012, 5:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
As a result, only the provisions of the EPC 1973 are applied.Computation of the beginning and the end of the TFO[4] In agreement with the parties the Board of appeal bases its considerations on the following factual situation: The wording of claim 1 according to the decision to grant a patent of October 26, 2006, comprised three parallel alternatives A, B, and C, whereas the wording of claim 1 of the patent specification in the relevant German version only contained the alternatives A and… [read post]
27 Apr 2009, 7:01 am
First, while it appears that Proposed Section 2(b) of the Act was not intended to apply to agreements falling under Chapter 2, the matter is not entirely free from doubt. [read post]
21 Apr 2008, 6:18 am
However, in two important respects I feel free to disagree.First, this concerns the statement that - as a matter of fact - we can now observe "the rise (or renaissance) of comparative law". [read post]
23 Aug 2024, 3:58 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Reem Contr. v Altschul & Altschul 2024 NY Slip Op 32915(U) August 19, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 104202/2011 Judge: David B. [read post]
27 Oct 2014, 12:11 pm by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer
Widely published on health benefit and other related matters, Ms. [read post]
13 Dec 2023, 7:47 am by Joel R. Brandes
Supreme Court observed that the Automatic Orders are codified within DRL § 236(B)(2)(b). [read post]
13 Dec 2023, 9:05 pm by renholding
In today’s rapidly evolving corporate landscape, the composition of boards is not just a matter of compliance or social responsibility; it’s a strategic imperative that shapes the future of firms. [read post]
26 Oct 2010, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
The present decision goes into some detail to explain why a request for postponement (well, as we shall see, the Board would not use this word) of oral proceedings (OPs) could (should) have been refused. [1] Article 15(2) RPBA provides as follows: “A change of date for OPs may exceptionally be allowed in the Board’s discretion following receipt of a written and reasoned request made as far as in advance of the appointed date as possible. [read post]