Search for: "Does 1 - 84"
Results 141 - 160
of 2,404
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Sep 2013, 5:01 pm
According to decision G 1/03 the introduction of a disclaimer that has not been disclosed in the application as filed can be allowable if it delimits a claim with respect to a state of the art pursuant to A 54(3)(4) EPC 1973, provided that the disclaimer does not exclude more than is necessary to re-establish novelty over this document and is clear and concise in order to comply with the requirements of A 84 (see decision G 1/03 [headnotes, 3]). [read post]
12 Jul 2013, 7:45 am
Looking more closely at the CJEU's train of thought:Articles 2(1) of Directive 84/450 and 2(a) of Directive 2006/114 define advertising as a representation in any form made in connection with a trade, business, craft or profession in order to promote the supply of goods or services. [read post]
15 Mar 2012, 2:53 am
For example, the Irish decision states “It is not contested that Section 42 [the provision in question relating to compulsory licences] does permit discrimination as to the field of technology in respect of enjoyment of patent rights contrary to Article 27(1) of TRIPS”. [read post]
10 Mar 2021, 9:23 am
There might be an "anomaly" in treatment of S. 8 petitions and S. 11 petitions insofar as appeal is concerned but that does not mean that an amendment has to be carried out. [read post]
10 Jan 2013, 4:00 am
Procedural fairness does not require an oral hearing in all circumstances. [read post]
16 Oct 2010, 11:01 am
Consequently, claim 1 of auxiliary request 1 does not fulfil the requirements of A 84. [read post]
2 Jun 2020, 4:00 am
** This decision was sustained administrative appeal.Plaintiff then initiated a CPLR Article 78 action seeking a court order compelling DOE (1) to produce such records pursuant to FOIL and (2) for an award of attorney's fees and litigation costs. [read post]
2 Jun 2020, 4:00 am
** This decision was sustained administrative appeal.Plaintiff then initiated a CPLR Article 78 action seeking a court order compelling DOE (1) to produce such records pursuant to FOIL and (2) for an award of attorney's fees and litigation costs. [read post]
5 Jan 2023, 6:17 pm
Borak,[1] however, the Supreme Court implied a private right of action from the statute. [read post]
27 Jun 2010, 3:01 pm
Under these circumstances, the Board concludes that claim 1 of the main request does not fulfill the requirement of A 84. [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 7:00 am
Why does the city commission want to meet with me about some kind of weed growing in my yard? [read post]
27 Apr 2014, 7:10 am
For example, it is stated in section 17(1) of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991. [read post]
2 Jul 2008, 10:00 am
., 84 USPQ2d 1346 (TTAB 2007), the Board found Applicant U.S. [read post]
27 Oct 2010, 11:58 am
Two other points of interest: 1. the court does not wade into the issue of whether there are any exceptions to sovereign immunity beyond those set out in the statute (para. 24), and 2. the court accepts the factual findings of the English decision as part of its analysis, prior to concluding that the decision is enforceable in Canada (para. 34). [read post]
18 Sep 2019, 4:46 am
“[J]udicial records, as well as documents reflecting out-of-court transactions such as mortgages, deeds, contracts, and any other papers, the contents of which are essentially undeniable, would qualify as documentary evidence in the proper case” (Fontanetta v John Doe 1, 73 AD3d at 84-85 [internal quotation marks omitted]). [read post]
15 Mar 2014, 12:34 pm
As I have written before, the Family Law Act provisions concerning discretionary trusts were poorly drafted.Currently section 85 (1) (f) excludes from family property that is subject to a division on separation:(f) property held in a discretionary trust(i) to which the spouse did not contribute,(ii) of which the spouse is a beneficiary, and(iii) that is settled by a person other than the spouse;But section 84(2)(g) includes in family property that is subject… [read post]
5 Apr 2023, 8:24 pm
Co. (204 AD3d 525 [1st Dept 2022]) , citing Bentoria, AFFIRMED Supreme Court's order granting the insurer's pre-answer CPLR 3211(a)(1) motion to dismiss the complaint based on documentary evidence, holding:The documentary evidence conclusively establishes a defense to plaintiff's claims (CPLR 3211[a][1]; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]). [read post]
18 May 2023, 9:05 pm
Journal of Financial Economics 84, 797–825. [read post]
27 Nov 2023, 1:25 am
If the answer to question 1 is "yes", can an application consequently be refused based on Article 84 EPC if the applicant does not remove the inconsistency in scope between the description and/or drawings and the claims by way of amendment of the description ("adaptation of the description"). [read post]
18 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
Claim 1 of the request thus fulfils the requirements of A 84 and A 83. [read post]
