Search for: "MATTER OF B P B P"
Results 1701 - 1720
of 5,344
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Feb 2018, 10:00 am
Code § 801(b).) [read post]
5 Feb 2018, 3:31 am
§ 157(b)(2)(B). [read post]
5 Feb 2018, 3:31 am
§ 157(b)(2)(B). [read post]
2 Feb 2018, 7:44 am
The draft Concept Note for the session follows along with an excerpt from the 2017 Report of the Special Rapporteur (A/72/523), which might inform the proceedings with respect to the substantial interplay between the construction of law-based legitimacy and the control and management of the substance, and mechanisms for the development, of social and cultural norms ¶ 92 "Finally, because prevention is not simply a matter of institutional engineering, the Special… [read post]
31 Jan 2018, 4:28 pm
It should be pointed out that the attorney in the LA County matter referred to 17200(b) which, as many know, has similarities to California PC 850. [read post]
31 Jan 2018, 4:28 pm
It should be pointed out that the attorney in the LA County matter referred to 17200(b) which, as many know, has similarities to California PC 850. [read post]
31 Jan 2018, 4:28 pm
It should be pointed out that the attorney in the LA County matter referred to 17200(b) which, as many know, has similarities to California PC 850. [read post]
31 Jan 2018, 4:28 pm
It should be pointed out that the attorney in the LA County matter referred to 17200(b) which, as many know, has similarities to California PC 850. [read post]
31 Jan 2018, 4:47 am
I would remit the matter to the Agency to reconsider whether to hear the complaint. [read post]
26 Jan 2018, 4:05 pm
" (see p 54). [read post]
24 Jan 2018, 7:25 am
Dec. 21, 2017) is a case under Part B of Title II to the ADA, which governs public transportation. [read post]
24 Jan 2018, 6:38 am
European patent No. 1 773 302, filed on 16 February 2005 and claiming the priority date of 23 July 2004 from US application 10/898061 (D1), was opposed on the ground that its subject-matter lacked novelty and inventive step (Article 100(a) EPC) and was insufficiently disclosed (Article 100(b) EPC).The following documents were among those cited during the first-instance proceedings:D1: US2005/0152971 (application No. 10/898061), filed on 23 July 2004, priority application of the… [read post]
24 Jan 2018, 6:38 am
European patent No. 1 773 302, filed on 16 February 2005 and claiming the priority date of 23 July 2004 from US application 10/898061 (D1), was opposed on the ground that its subject-matter lacked novelty and inventive step (Article 100(a) EPC) and was insufficiently disclosed (Article 100(b) EPC).The following documents were among those cited during the first-instance proceedings:D1: US2005/0152971 (application No. 10/898061), filed on 23 July 2004, priority application of the… [read post]
22 Jan 2018, 4:18 pm
The Second Circuit held that this evidence was not an inappropriate “truth on the market” defense—which seeks to argue that, prior to a particular plaintiff’s purchases, accurate information regarding the subject matter of the claim had already been revealed and thus that defendants’ stock price had already declined accordingly—but rather a permissible “price impact” rebuttal.[9] Although the Second Circuit “espouse[d] no views as to… [read post]
22 Jan 2018, 1:25 pm
</p> </div> <div style="padding-top:0px;padding-bottom:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:35px;" data-rss-type="text"> <p style="margin:0px;"> <b> Check the weather before planning a road trip </b> . [read post]
22 Jan 2018, 4:28 am
., FRCP 12(b)(6)). [read post]
18 Jan 2018, 9:28 am
G.S. 148-64.1(b). [read post]
18 Jan 2018, 4:00 am
There are other matters which can properly be checked only by reference to the original will. [read post]
17 Jan 2018, 5:00 am
The grounds for inferring a “real” policy contravening the formally-stated policy are weaker here, it seems to me, and I think it also matters that here we are likely to have a formally stated policy that is unchanged from the policies of the past two presidents, in contrast to the novelties of the Travel Ban. b. [read post]
17 Jan 2018, 1:31 am
In particular, the Bulgarian presidency is asking Member States about:- determination of the extracts of press publications that would fall within the scope of the right: would that be a matter of originality (and therefore eligibility for protection also under copyright, as per Infopaq) of the part reproduced, or should size be a criterion irrespective of originality? [read post]
