Search for: "J. Doe 8"
Results 1 - 20
of 6,197
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Jun 2012, 6:11 am
John Does 1-8 Court Case Number: 1:12-cv-00840-RLY-MJD File Date: Monday, June 18, 2012 Plaintiff: Malibu Media, LLC Plaintiff Counsel: Paul J. [read post]
18 Nov 2010, 9:07 am
Posted Nov 17, 2010 8:03 PM CSTBy Patrick J. [read post]
21 Jul 2017, 7:20 am
On July 11, 2017, DOE announced the selection of three projects focused on reducing the costs of producing algal biofuels and bioproducts that will receive up to $8 million in funding. [read post]
21 Dec 2021, 5:18 am
The full reasoning will be provided in the written decision.File wrapper: EP 18 275 163 (J 8/20) and EP 18 275 174 (J 9/20)Also refer to our earlier blog post in respect of the refusal by the Receiving Section here.The above comments reflect my personal understanding of what was discussed at the oral proceedings. [read post]
14 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
R 27a does not then apply, because the application does not contain any sequences, despite the fact that the invention refers to nucleotides or amino acids. [read post]
21 Mar 2013, 6:01 pm
However, the fact that the representative did not make any mistake does not protect his client from the consequences of its own errors or negligence (J 3/93; T 381/93; J 16/93; J 17/03).The argument that the applicant could not have known which time limits [, if not met,] would result in the irrevocable loss of the application is not sufficient for establishing that all due care had been taken. [read post]
26 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
J 11/87 [3.3, 3.6]; J 27/94 [8)) and is not allowed to reverse these acts so that they can be considered as never filed (J 10/87 [12]; J 4/97 [2]).On the other hand, the Boards of Appeal considered that R 88 acknowledges as a further legal value the desirability of having regard to true as opposed to ostensible party intentions in legal proceedings (T 824/00 [6]) in appropriate circumstances. [read post]
30 Nov 2010, 4:22 pm
This post from March 2010 considers the implications of the Article 8 case law for “image rights” The English common law does not recognise what French lawyers call “image rights”. [read post]
22 Feb 2018, 6:45 pm
(U.S.S.C., Jan. 8, 2018, Tharpe v. [read post]
11 Mar 2010, 4:12 pm
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which includes California, issued a ruling on March 9 that the clear and unambiguous language of RESPA Section 8(b) does not reach the practice of overcharging. [read post]
24 Mar 2009, 12:43 pm
Even if you obtain TN visa status, the J-1 two-year home residency requirement does not disappear. [read post]
1 Feb 2012, 5:01 pm
The entitlement of legal practitioners is laid down in A 134(8). [read post]
8 Nov 2010, 3:01 pm
In general, a mistake or ignorance of the law is an insufficient ground for re-establishment: see J 5/94 [3.1], J 27/01 [3.3.1], J 2/02 [8] and J 6/07 [2.4-5]. [read post]
22 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
The last opportunity to file a divisional application was thus 8 .... [read post]
4 Jan 2017, 10:18 am
While most third degree crimes are prosecuted with a presumption of non-incarceration for first offenders, the statute specifies that the presumption does not apply to cases of Corrupting or Influencing a Jury. [read post]
3 Jul 2015, 1:28 am
Moreover, the Ukrainian Embassy does not intend to issue a No Objection statement for our client’s possible J-1 visa waiver. [read post]
23 Sep 2013, 5:37 am
John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 50.129.8.71 Court Case Number: 1:13-cv-01520-SEB-DMLFile Date: Friday, September 20, 2013Plaintiff: Malibu Media, LLCPlaintiff Counsel: Paul J. [read post]
21 Nov 2011, 12:28 pm
Steven J. [read post]
1 Feb 2013, 11:42 am
Advanced Image Direct LLC, et. al., 8-12-cv-01090 (CACD January 30, 2013, Order) (Carter, J.). [read post]
8 Jul 2014, 12:14 pm
In the Platinum One case, the DOJ–and the federal judge–sent a strong message that 8(a) crime does not pay. [read post]
