Search for: "Does 1-71"
Results 1941 - 1960
of 2,540
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Apr 2011, 4:56 am
Accordingly, the Appellate Division, citing the Court of Appeals ruling in Tolub v Evans, 58 NY2d 1, held that OCA’s action “does not offend due process,” because in matters concerning the State’s budget, “equal protection does not require that all classifications be made with mathematical precision. [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 6:02 am
§28-3905(k)(1). [read post]
13 Apr 2011, 6:43 am
The patient never agreed to receive the care, so does the patient owe the [read post]
12 Apr 2011, 3:01 pm
To that extent, the decision does indeed not comply with R 68(2), first sentence, EPC 1973. [read post]
10 Apr 2011, 10:00 pm
This time another Advocate-General’s opinion in March 2011, C-71/10 Office of Communications v. [read post]
7 Apr 2011, 6:01 pm
The FWS 90–day Finding states,”the petition does not provide substantial information suggesting that the portion of the range where the subspecies no longer occurs is significant to the long-term persistence of the subspecies. [read post]
6 Apr 2011, 12:00 pm
Speaker Christine C. [read post]
4 Apr 2011, 5:08 pm
That is clear from the the text of the Article (emphasis mine): 1. [read post]
1 Apr 2011, 10:43 am
(Tr. 71-72.) [read post]
31 Mar 2011, 3:01 pm
However, paragraph 1 does not require that the request be filed and the documents be produced at the same date.In the present case, on 24 January 2010 the alleged appellant filed the notice of appeal dated 23 January 2010, produced an assignment document at the same time, but failed to file a request for transfer of the patent as required by R 22(1). [read post]
30 Mar 2011, 8:06 am
The ITC does not have authority to award Kodak money damages for past infringement, even if it does determine that Kodak’s ‘218 patent is valid and infringed. [read post]
27 Mar 2011, 12:42 pm
Does an attorney have to file a brief challenging the sentence as unlawful? [read post]
24 Mar 2011, 11:21 pm
Article 18 (now article 21 TFEU) provides: 1. [read post]
24 Mar 2011, 9:46 am
That is for younger people (I am 71) who want to make a mark. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 5:43 pm
Id. at 13-66-71. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 4:01 pm
It is therefore the applicant who is entitled to file requests in grant proceedings before the EPO (see for example A 93(1)(b) (request for early publication), R 70(1) (request for examination) and R 71(4) (request for amendments)). [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 12:01 am
The Rogers data does leave about 1% of its subscribers as repeat infringing after two notices (the number drops far below 1% after the third notice). [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 12:33 pm
Does that affect the analysis? [read post]
21 Mar 2011, 5:14 am
Lemley, Ex Ante Versus Ex Post Justifications for Intellectual Property, 71 U. [read post]
18 Mar 2011, 3:00 am
Roberts, 692 S.W.2d at 870-71. [read post]
