February 2009. In the framework of the Italian-French Protocol of Understanding for energy cooperation, Xxxxxx Xxxxx, Chief Executive Officer and General Manager of Enel, and Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, Chairman and General Manager of EDF, have signed a first Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that sets the basis for the joint development of nuclear energy in Italy by the two companies.
February 2009. Patents – Application for revocation – whether patent is patentable - novelty and inventive step – Section 14(1), 14(2), 15, 80(1)(a) of the Patents Act (Cap 221, 2005 Rev Ed) Patents –foreign corresponding decisions – extent of reliance Patents – role of expert witnesses – explaining words or terms of science or art appearing in documents – matters within exclusive domain of court on questions of fact or law or interpretation of a document Patents - independence of expert witnesses – current or former employees of Patentee – not precluded from giving evidence - evidence to be scrutinized with greater care - consideration limited to technical and scientific aspects of invention Patents - construction of claims – “for [a particular use]” – not limited to that use - dimensional limitation to claim Patents – novelty – guiding principles – prior art must unequivocally point to the invention - enabling disclosure Patents – inventive step – permitted to combine documents or “mosaic” prior art - test to be applied in inventive step assessment Procedure–– Submission of evidence after close of proceedings – Submission of evidence without leave or statutory declaration Words and Phrases – “novelty” –“inventive step” – Patentability – Section 14(1), 14(2), 15, 80(1)(a) of the Patents Act (Cap 221, 2005 Rev Ed) Facts Held, allowing the Applicant’s request to revoke the Patent
1. The Applicant succeeded in its application to revoke the Patent under sections 80(1)(a) of the Patents Act. Notwithstanding some findings of novelty in some of the claims, the Hearing Officers found that the main claims 1, 2, 20 and 35 lacked inventive step. Further, all the dependent claims failed as such and the invention in the subject Patent was found not patentable. The features in the dependent claims were also considered separately and the Hearing Officers arrived at the conclusion that they are obvious and not inventive: at [215, 216].
2. On the foreign corresponding USPTO and EPO decisions, much caution was exercised in relying on them in this case : First Currency Choice Pte Ltd v Main-Line Corporate Holdings Ltd and Another Appeal [2007] SGCA 50 at [2]. An adjudication on patent rights is predicated upon not only the applicable regulatory framework and practices, but also the evidence presented as well as the submissions made to the tribunal concerned. Furthermore, the matter has not yet been finally concluded in those jurisdictions : at [10] – [12].
3. It is for the Hearing Officer...
February 2009. 40686880 July 2012............
February 2009. New agreement, incrementally increasing the ADT threshold within limits for intersection/ interchange skew angles and to update the text of the Agreement. • Based on worst-case modeling inputs for traffic, emissions and dispersion. • New thresholds: • 59,000 ADT for any project affecting capacity for roadways that either have no intersections or interchanges or have ones that have skew angles no less than 60 degrees; • 49,000 ADT for skew angles from 45 degrees up to 60 degrees; and • 39,000 ADT or skew angles from 30 degrees up to 45 degrees. • Subject to intersection/freeway interchange LOS E limits or reasonable proxies, such as peak hour vehicle per hour per lane (vphpl) limits of 1037 for arterial streets and 2200 for freeways or limited access roadways without intersections, which were assumptions made for the worst-case analysis. • Qualitative text updated for: 1) exempt projects and ones that qualify for a PCE, and 2) ones that meet the ADT, skew angle (as applicable), and LOS thresholds. • Specifies models to be applied as the latest ones approved by the US EPA and agreed by FHWA for project-level analyses, namely, MOBILE6.2, which was expected to be updated in the near term to a “next generation” model for emissions, and CAL3QHC and CALINE3 for dispersion, and updates or replacements thereto. • As a limitation of the EPA MOBILE model, the effect of road grades on emissions could not be modeled or included in this agreement. • Major update expanding coverage of project types, configurations (including road grades) and settings (urban/rural), and adding terms to facilitate the screening process • Based on templates developed in NCHRP 25-25 Task 78 (2015), which are available on the following website: xxxxx://xxxx.xxx.xxx/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=3311 • VDOT proposed the NCHRP study and participated in the project panel. • As noted in the NCHRP report (Executive Summary, page X, and main report, page 14), the NCHRP 25-25 Task 78 study conducted a survey of programmatic agreements in place across the nation and selected the 2009 FHWA-VDOT PA and TSD as the model for its new national templates. This selection reflects well on the FHWA-VDOT process for developing and implementing such agreements. Excerpt from NCHRP 25-25 Task 78, p.14: “…Virginia’s [PA] is applicable to a wide range of project types and conditions and can be tailored to NEPA or state environmental requirements. Consequently, Virginia’s 2009 PA was chosen as the model ...
February 2009. February 2009 ...... March 2009 .......... March 2009 .......... March/April 2009 .. March/April 2009 .. Forms approval .................... Agenda, TT Material, attendee’s lists. Forms approval ....................
February 2009. 732,796,666 236,609,759 September 2006..... March 2009....... 716,180,225 228,148,472 October 2006.......
February 2009. This allows CARICC to begin the transition from pilot phase to full fledged functional- ity. CARICC is to serve as perma- nently operating regional infor- mation and coordination inter- state agency that shall assist in organizing, undertaking and co- ordinating agreed joint interna- tional operations to combat illicit drug trafficking. The Centre shall also ensure the collection, stor- age, protection, analysis, and exchange of information on trans -border crime associated with illicit drug trafficking. XXXXXX’s activities are carried out by the staff of the Centre supported by the liaison officers of the member states as well as liaison officers of observers (non- member states and international organisation) seconded to it. The first meeting of the CARICC Council (management board) was held in Almaty on 26 Febru- ary 2009. The Council approved XXXXXX’s strategic plan for the next two years and endorsed candidates for the post of CARICC Director and deputy director who are to be approved by the heads of the CARICC member states. CARICC continues to develop part- nerships with non-member states and organisations. France and Inter- pol were recently granted observer status at CARICC. Requests of Italy, Finland, and the USA are expected to be considered soon. CARICC Agreement is open for other states to join either as ob- server or as a full member. Thus, CARICC aims at close cooperation with other countries of the wider region such as Afghanistan, Paki- xxxx, Iran and China. The Centre will be closely cooperating with in- ternational organisations such as Interpol, Europol, World Customs Organisation and others. Secure communication platforms “I -24/7” of Interpol and “CENCOMM2” of WCO were made available to CARICC during the pilot phase of operations of the Centre. CARICC’s achievements to date include serving as the regional focal point for operation “TARCET” on precursors and controlled delivery exercises. XXXXXX’s efforts to xxxxxx cooperation and information shar- ing among the countries resulted, for instance, in seizure of 41 kg heroin in Azerbaijan and 28 kg of heroin in Turkmenistan in two dif- ferent operations coordinated with Turkish authorities. Altogether, the operations initiated by the liaison officers and coordinated through CARICC have resulted in the dis- mantling of more than 10 drug traf- ficking groups, the arrest of several traffickers and the seizure of ap- proximately 200 kg of heroin. On March, 31 – April, 1, 2009 UNODC ROCA joint...
February 2009. All Tenderers who wish to submit a bid in this Tender are strongly recommended to attend. Tenderers who would like to attend the briefing session and site visit should complete the reply slip attached at Annex A and send back on or before 20 February 2009 to Wetland Park Supervisor (Operation) to register (Fax no.: 0000 0000).
February 2009. 10,811,031.05 March 2012.......................... 2.76 March 2009..................... 9,733,159.32 April 2012.......................... 0.61 April 2009...................... 8,722,445.97 May 2012 (and thereafter)........... 0.00 May 2009........................ 7,777,474.49 The YSOA has been calculated for each Payment Date as the sum of the amount for each Receivable equal to the excess, if any, of o the scheduled payments due on such Receivable for each future Collection Period discounted to present value as of the end of the preceding Collection Period at the APR of such Receivable, over o the scheduled payments due on the Receivable for each future Collection Period discounted to present value as of the end of the preceding Collection Period at 9.5%. For purposes of such calculation, future scheduled payments on the Receivables are assumed to be made on their scheduled due dates without any delays, defaults or prepayments. EXHIBIT A Form of Distribution Statement to Noteholders DaimlerChrysler Financial Services Americas LLC DaimlerChrysler Auto Trust 2006-B Payment Date Statement to Noteholders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Amount of Principal Paid to:
February 2009. 10,508,835.73 March 2012 (and thereafter). -- March 2009............... 9
