alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017022EN.01001401.xml

| 23.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/14

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 10 November 2016 — Merck Sharp v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

(Case C-567/16)

(2017/C 022/20)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Merck Sharp

Applicant:

Defendant: Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is an End of Procedure Notice issued by the reference member state under Article 28(4) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/83/EC (1) of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use before expiry of the basic patent to be treated as equivalent to a granted marketing authorisation for the purposes of Article 3(b) of European Parliament and Council Regulation 469/2009/EC (2) of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (codified version) (the ‘SPC Regulation’), such that an applicant for an SPC in the Member State in question is entitled to apply for and be granted an SPC on the basis of the End of Procedure Notice? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is an End of Procedure Notice issued by the reference member state under Article 28(4) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/83/EC (1) of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use before expiry of the basic patent to be treated as equivalent to a granted marketing authorisation for the purposes of Article 3(b) of European Parliament and Council Regulation 469/2009/EC (2) of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (codified version) (the ‘SPC Regulation’), such that an applicant for an SPC in the Member State in question is entitled to apply for and be granted an SPC on the basis of the End of Procedure Notice?

1

2

| 2. | If the answer to question (1) is no; in the circumstances in question 1, is the absence of a granted marketing authorisation in the Member State in question at the date of the application for an SPC in that member state an irregularity that can be cured under Article 10(3) of the SPC Regulation once the marketing authorisation has been granted? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to question (1) is no; in the circumstances in question 1, is the absence of a granted marketing authorisation in the Member State in question at the date of the application for an SPC in that member state an irregularity that can be cured under Article 10(3) of the SPC Regulation once the marketing authorisation has been granted?

---

(1)  OJ L 311, p. 67

1

(2)  OJ L 152, p. 1

2

---
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, William Scigliano, certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of IQ Biometrix,
Inc.;

      2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

      3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

      4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

            a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
      disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
      to ensure that material information relating to the registrant is made
      known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
      period in which this report is being prepared;

            b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
      controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about
      the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
      of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

            c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
      control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
      most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the
      case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
      likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over
      financial reporting; and

      5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

            a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
      design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information; and

            b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
      other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
      control over financial reporting.

Date: March 12, 2004


/s/ William Scigliano
---------------------------
William Scigliano
Chief Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE WELLBUTRIN SR/ZYBAN ANTITRUST )

LITIGATION ) Master File No. 02-CV-4398

)

 )

)

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: )

ALL ACTIONS )

 )

ORDER

AND NOW, this day of August, 2003, upon consideration of the stipulation for

an extension of time entered into by the parties, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants shall answer

Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Class Action Complaint on or before August 29, 2003.

BY THE COURT:

 

BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN, J.

Case 2:02-cv-04398-BWK Document 34 Filed 08/13/2003 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KIRITKUMAR D. DESAI, :

Petitioner, : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF :

PROBATION AND PAROLE, et al., :

Respondents : NO. 05-1811

ORDER

AND NOW, this 15th day of December, 2005, upon careful

and independent consideration of the Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus (Docket No. 1), and the respondents’ Response, and after

review of the Report and Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge (Docket No. 11) and the

additional information filed by the petitioner in response, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED AND

ADOPTED.

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED

AND DISMISSED AS TIME BARRED pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(d)(1). 

3. There is no basis for the issuance of a

certificate of appealability.

Case 2:05-cv-01811-MAM Document 13 Filed 12/15/05 Page 1 of 2
The Court has reviewed the additional information which

was filed by the petitioner in response to the Report and

Recommendation. The petitioner argued the merits of his habeas

petition, but did not put forth any argument why his petition was

not time barred. Following an independent review of the record,

the Court agrees with the Report and Recommendation that the

petition for habeas corpus must be dismissed as time barred.

BY THE COURT:

 /s/ Mary A. McLaughlin

MARY A. McLAUGHLIN, J.

Case 2:05-cv-01811-MAM Document 13 Filed 12/15/05 Page 2 of 2
cteform10k080331_ex10-33.htm


    
      
         


      

      
         


        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    


    EXHIBIT
10.33

     

    


     

    


     

    


     

    CardioTech
International letterhead

     

    


    January
7, 2008

    


    Philip
Beck

    1230
Creekside Crossing

    Stillwater,
MN 55082

    


    Dear
Phil:

    


    CardioTech
International Inc.’s Catheter and Disposables Inc. subsidiary (the “Company” and
you are parties to an Employment Agreement dated as of October 12, 2006 (the
“Agreement”).  The defined term of employment under the Agreement
ended on October 22, 2007, and you and the Company have confirmed that your
employment relationship continues on a month to month basis as contemplated by
the Agreement.

    


    Management
of CardioTech International Inc. has discussed with you an initiative concerning
the possible sale and disposition of the Company or the business and assets of
the Company (the “Transaction”), and has engaged Silverwood Partners to provide
certain financial advisory services in connection with that
initiative.  Management also has discussed with you its interest in
having you stay on at the Company and assist management in completing the
Transaction, and subject to and upon the terms and conditions set forth in this
letter, you have agreed to do so.

    


    You have
agreed to continue in your role as the Vice President and General Manager of the
Company, and to use your best efforts to support any proposal, discussion,
negotiation or related diligence investigation respecting a
Transaction.  In consideration of your energetic performance of such
efforts, and subject to the exception set forth in the next paragraph of this
letter, CardioTech International, Inc. (“CTE”), will pay you (1) $70,000 (the
“Stay Bonus”) upon the closing of a Transaction, and (2) if you are the direct
source or introduction of the party who completes the Transaction, an additional
fee in the amount of five percent (5%) of the net sale proceeds, such fee to be
paid only if consideration is in excess of $500,000 (the “Fee”).  Such
Fee is to be payable to you as and when the CTE realizes the purchase
consideration.  For avoidance of doubt, purchase consideration (a)
paid into and held in escrow, or (b) payable as an earnout or on some other
deferred basis, will not be deemed received by CTE until it is actually
delivered to the Company without further restriction on its disposition or
distribution.

    


    Notwithstanding
anything herein to the contrary, neither the Fee nor the Stay Bonus will be
payable to you in connection with the closing of any Transaction with a party in
which you are part of a management buyout group.

    


    Nothing
in this agreement shall be deemed to amend or modify the Agreement.

    


    Very
truly yours,

    


    


    Catheter
and Disposables Technology, Inc.

    


    


    By:
/s/   Philip A. Beck

    


    


    CardioTech
International, Inc.

    


    


    
      	 
      


    

    By:
/s/   Michael F. Adams
No. 57194.

protests 924182-G, etc. (New York).

#### J. H. Bleistein, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the kidskin plates are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Kung Chen Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Ford, J., concurred.

Mollison, J., dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1480, *supra.*
No. 52933.

#### Oregon Liquor Control Commission (Transferee) *v.*United States,

protest 127376-K (Portland, Oreg.).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained. The protest was overruled in all other respects.
No. 51349.

#### Protest 63365-K of Schranz & Bieber Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the "free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on the entry. The protest was sustained to this extent.
p.1 

OAR Box 1802 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

11) I V-E-06 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 11/4/2008 11:57:59 AM Sheet 11 of 117 
P.2 

-37 

06 

February 6,1997 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: 

FROM: 

TO: 

Attendance at Workshop Sponsored by the American Forest & Paper Association 

(AF&PA) on February 4,1997. r ^ J7\ /) 

Dan J. deRoeck, Environmental Engineer (MD-12) 7_JT^ZJ 

Information Transfer & Program Integration Division, OAQPS 

Air Docket No. A-90-37 

t;*!^-:-/0_' 

On February 4,1997,1 attended an industry workshop entitled "Environmental 

Challenges: What s New in the Wood Products Industry?" sponsored by the AF&PA The 

3SH P T-TT^ ^ ^

 bY PerS °n S rePresentin 8 the paper products industry, but also 

included individuals from State and local agencies and the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). The purpose of my attendance was to serve as a speaker during a 45-minute 

session concerning the EPA's proposed NSR Reform rulemaking. Specifically, I summarized 

the key areas covered by the proposal and discussed in more detail the proposed changes to the 

requirements for protection of Class I areas under the program for prevention of significant 

deterioration. After the presentation, I answered several questions of a clarifying nature and 

responded to several comments critical of the proposal itself. 

FEB l 5 1997 

EPA AIR DOCKET 

(, 

.01
FI[R§T CENSUS 

OF THE UNITED SI’ATES 

1790 

NEW YORK 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR -‘I 1 i 

BUREAU F THECENSWS 1 ,‘I 8 ( : 

1 

S. N. D. NORTH, DIRECTOR \ “:I (,,A> ” 1 

t S 

AT THE FIRST CENSUS OF THE 

UNITED STATES TAKEN 

IN THE YEAR 

1790 

.____._.. -._--l-_-l _.-.. -. .-....- --.-- 

WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1908 
printed Bepart X.Y. 1796
---

EXHIBIT 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Dorato Resources Inc.
(the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended January 31, 2013, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Anton J. Drescher, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and                                   
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                 
| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

Dated: May 31, 2013

| | /s/
      Anton J. Drescher
| | ---------------------------
| | Anton J. Drescher          
| | Chief Financial Officer    

---
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

AmerUs Group Co.
Statement Re: Computation of Earnings Per Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                       For The Three Months Ended March 31,
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      2004                              2003
                                                         -------------------------------   -------------------------------
                                                            Net     Number of  Per Share      Net     Number of  Per Share
                                                          Income     Shares     Amount      Income     Shares     Amount
                                                         -------------------------------   -------------------------------
                                                                     ($ in thousands, except per share amounts)
<S>                                                      <C>        <C>        <C>         <C>        <C>        <C>
Basic EPS
       Net income from continuing operations             $  29,740     39,263  $    0.76   $  35,302     38,985  $    0.91

Effect of dilutive securities
       Options                                                   -        648      (0.01)          -        233      (0.01)
       PRIDES                                                    -        524      (0.01)          -          -          -
                                                         ---------     ------  ---------   ---------     ------  ---------
Diluted EPS                                              $  29,740     40,435  $    0.74   $  35,302     39,218  $    0.90
                                                         =========     ======  =========   =========     ======  =========
</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KATHY L. OAKES : CIVIL ACTION

:

 v. :

:

HENKELS and MCCOY, et al. : NO. 02-2749

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 16th day of October, 2002, defendant’s

motion for sanctions is denied. 

This is not a total default in discovery. In a

discovery dispute - if this is one - a motion for an order to

compel requires a joint submission. See my statement of

scheduling policy. Here, a telephone conference may be

appropriate.

 

 Edmund V. Ludwig, J.

Case 2:02-cv-02749-EL Document 35 Filed 10/17/2002 Page 1 of 1
# C_2018022EN.01003901.xml

| 22.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2017 — Toontrack Music v EUIPO (SUPERIOR DRUMMER)

(Case T-895/16) (1)

1

((European Union trade mark - Application for EU word mark SUPERIOR DRUMMER - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 022/53)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Toontrack Music AB (Umeå, Sweden) (represented by: L.-E. Ström, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 October 2016 (Case R 2438/2015-5) concerning the registration of the word mark SUPERIOR DRUMMER as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Toontrack Music AB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Toontrack Music AB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ANNETTE JOHNSON :

: CIVIL ACTION

:

vs. :

: NO. 02-4424

KRAFT FOODS, INC. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, TO WIT: This day of October, 2002, it having been reported that

the above captioned action has been settled and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the

provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court, it is

ORDERED that the above captioned action is DISMISSED with prejudice,

pursuant to agreement of counsel without costs.

MICHAEL E. KUNZ, Clerk of Court

BY: 

Cathy Luongo

 Deputy Clerk

Copies FAXED on to: Copies Mailed on to:

Civ 2 (8/2000)

41(b).frm

Case 2:02-cv-04424-RBS Document 8 Filed 10/10/2002 Page 1 of 1
No. 52215.

protests 97064-K, etc. (New York).

#### Louis Wolf & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Kinciieloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 59472.

protests 227140-K, etc. (Providence).

#### Leonard Levin Co. *v.*United States,

*312Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that the subject of Abstract 59105, the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) The items marked vpith the letter “A” at 10 percent under the provision in paragraph 1528, as modified, *supra,*for imitation semiprecious stones, faceted, and (2) the items marked with the letter “B” at 30 percent under said paragraph, as modified, *supra,*as imitation semiprecious stones, not faceted.
No. 60776.

#### Kurt Gottfried & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 271714-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that the subject of Abstract 59105, the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) The items marked with the letter “A” at 10 percent under the provision in paragraph 1528, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52739), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52836), for imitation semiprecious stones, faceted, and (2) the items marked with the letters “B” and “C” at 30-percent under the provision in said paragraph, as modified by T. D. 51802, supplemented by T. D. 51898, for imitation semiprecious stones, not faceted.