Search for: "J. K." Results 181 - 200 of 6,959
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 May 2009, 2:08 am
Scott, 49, a/k/a, Tamara Penn, Indianapolis, Indiana, Donald T. [read post]
24 Feb 2009, 1:46 am
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) Heronslea (Mill Hill) Ltd. v Kwik-Fit Properties Ltd. [2009] EWHC 295 (QB) (20 February 2009) High Court (Technology and Construction Court) Richard J Thompson Trading As R J Thompson International v James K Charlesworth [2009] EWHC B3 (TCC) (17 February 2009) Source: www.bailii.org [read post]
8 Dec 2016, 11:31 am by Jill Gross
”  Authored by a Ph.D. candidate in human development (Rebecca K. [read post]
27 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
The same is true where, as in the present case, the description referred to Figures 1 to 11, but no Figure 11 was filed: Figure 11 was clearly missing (see also J 15/12). [read post]
1 May 2009, 4:18 am
Aadressil http://ipestonia.ning.com/page/innovatsiooniuudised-1 on loodud neli teemat, kus saab jälgida kõige värskemaid uudiseid ja postitusi hetkel 27 erinevast allikast. [read post]
25 Nov 2014, 12:39 pm by Rechtsanwalt & Strafverteidiger
Ähnliche Beiträge:Freispruch nach NotwehrAnblasen mit Zigarettenrauch kann eine Körperverletzung…Freispruch für Flugschau-Veranstalter bleibt bestehenStreit um Parkplatz: Freispruch in zweiter InstanzFreispruch: 67-jährige Juwelierin erschoss Räuber in… [read post]
3 Mar 2012, 1:25 am by Rechtsanwalt
Vor dem Amtsgericht Borken musste sich ein 34-Jähriger wegen Körperverletzung und Vergewaltigung verantworten. [read post]
21 May 2012, 5:01 pm by Oliver
 This decision – the knowledge of which I owe to a kind reader of this blog – deals with an appeal against a refusal of a request by the Receiving Section (RS).The application under consideration was filed on August 13, 2009 and claimed the priority of a U.S. application that had been filed on August 14, 2008 (hereinafter “priority application”). [read post]
9 Jun 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
This means in particular that the request must firstly define the factual context in which the mistake occurred and secondly adduce convincing evidence in support of the alleged cause of non-compliance.[3.3] The Boards of Appeal have consistently ruled that facts pleaded for the first time during the appeal proceedings should not in principle be taken into consideration(see J 18/98 [4], T 257/07 [1.2]).[3.4] In the present case, the board by its communication informed the appellant that the… [read post]
24 Apr 2012, 5:01 pm by Oliver
As can be seen from the basic proposition for a revision of the EPC of October 13, 2000 (MR/2/00, Number 6, A 122), the lawmaker wanted to keep the possibility of re-establishment into the time limit for further processing, which had been acknowledged by the case law (J 12/92 [3.2.2]; J 29/94 [3], J 902/87 [2.2-4]). [read post]
20 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
As the Board had already explained in its decisions J 7/96 [2.2] and J 8/96 [2.2], these provisions form part of a system of legal process which is provided under the EPC for determining the right to a European patent application when this is in dispute, and for implementing this determination. [read post]
7 Feb 2010, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
As regards the time limit for the payment of the renewal fees for a European patent application under A 86, the EPO is under no obligation to remind the applicant of its expiration and the applicant can derive no right from the absence of any such reminder (established jurisprudence following J 12/84; J 1/89). [7] The appellant also submitted that if a further prosecution of the application is refused based on non-payment of the renewal fee, it would defeat the purpose of R 108(3).… [read post]