Search for: "MATTER OF K A B"
Results 961 - 980
of 2,720
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Apr 2017, 5:11 am
The person who receives the dividend is the person responsible for paying the tax on the dividend: it doesn’t matter who owns the stock. [read post]
13 Mar 2012, 6:32 am
Aidikoff & Ryan K. [read post]
22 Sep 2008, 11:00 am
Byer - K&L Gates LLP.David is a partner whose practice focuses on trademark and copyright law. [read post]
24 Aug 2017, 7:00 am
Alphabet – Simply; A, B, C, etc… If you can remember the Alphabet Song, you are in great shape. [read post]
17 Oct 2009, 8:53 pm
Edge and Jeffrey K. [read post]
3 Jul 2024, 2:38 pm
Bender and Matthew K. [read post]
10 Dec 2007, 11:18 pm
Noteworthy has been the reliance on cases in which Justice Wiley B. [read post]
12 Jun 2007, 10:09 am
Pollution B. [read post]
28 Feb 2007, 6:54 am
If you work for a company that offers a 401(k) or 403(b) retirement plan and kicks in a matching contribution, you must join and contribute enough to get the match. [read post]
1 Apr 2007, 12:39 pm
`(b) Limitation on Prior Art-`(1) DERIVATION AND COMMON ASSIGNMENT EXCEPTIONS- Subject matter that would otherwise qualify as prior art only under subsection (a)(2) shall not be prior art to a claimed invention if--`(A) the subject matter was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or`(B) the subject matter and the claimed invention were, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, owned by the same… [read post]
1 Mar 2007, 11:38 am
`(b) Limitation on Prior Art-`(1) DERIVATION AND COMMON ASSIGNMENT EXCEPTIONS- Subject matter that would otherwise qualify as prior art only under subsection (a)(2) shall not be prior art to a claimed invention if--`(A) the subject matter was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or`(B) the subject matter and the claimed invention were, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, owned by the same… [read post]
15 Jan 2007, 10:04 am
`(b) Limitation on Prior Art-`(1) DERIVATION AND COMMON ASSIGNMENT EXCEPTIONS- Subject matter that would otherwise qualify as prior art only under subsection (a)(2) shall not be prior art to a claimed invention if--`(A) the subject matter was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or`(B) the subject matter and the claimed invention were, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, owned by the same… [read post]
1 Jun 2007, 1:04 pm
`(b) Limitation on Prior Art-`(1) DERIVATION AND COMMON ASSIGNMENT EXCEPTIONS- Subject matter that would otherwise qualify as prior art only under subsection (a)(2) shall not be prior art to a claimed invention if--`(A) the subject matter was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or`(B) the subject matter and the claimed invention were, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, owned by the same… [read post]
1 Feb 2007, 11:37 am
`(b) Limitation on Prior Art-`(1) DERIVATION AND COMMON ASSIGNMENT EXCEPTIONS- Subject matter that would otherwise qualify as prior art only under subsection (a)(2) shall not be prior art to a claimed invention if--`(A) the subject matter was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or`(B) the subject matter and the claimed invention were, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, owned by the same… [read post]
1 May 2007, 12:40 pm
`(b) Limitation on Prior Art-`(1) DERIVATION AND COMMON ASSIGNMENT EXCEPTIONS- Subject matter that would otherwise qualify as prior art only under subsection (a)(2) shall not be prior art to a claimed invention if--`(A) the subject matter was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or`(B) the subject matter and the claimed invention were, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, owned by the same… [read post]
7 Dec 2011, 9:35 am
P. 19(a)(1)(B)(i). [read post]
13 Mar 2011, 4:01 pm
As the time limit pursuant to R 159(1) EPC expired in the present case on 23 July 2008, the DA was validly filed on 22 July 2008.[4] The reasons in the appealed decision are mainly based on the grounds that:(a) the term “pending earlier European patent application” in R 36(1) EPC includes the requirement that the parent application must be pending before the EPO; and(b) an international application which has not fulfilled the requirements of R 159(1) EPC for entering the… [read post]
27 Nov 2007, 6:49 pm
Vasilakos and Debbie K. [read post]
2 Jun 2016, 5:23 am
Laidlaw Energy Group, Inc. and Michael B. [read post]
1 Jan 2023, 2:54 pm
The 201(k) letter is both your notes as to what you received, what is still missing and your communication with the opposing side about such matters. [read post]
