Search for: "J. DOES 1-5" Results 1 - 20 of 6,460
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Nov 2012, 6:10 pm by Kenan Farrell
John Does 1-5 Court Case Number: 1:12-cv-01680-SEB-TABFile Date: Thursday, November 15, 2012Plaintiff: Malibu Media LLCPlaintiff Counsel: Paul J. [read post]
21 Mar 2013, 6:01 pm by oliver randl
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]
19 Jul 2016, 2:46 pm by scanner1
SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Respondent and Appellee. [read post]
14 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
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]
26 Sep 2007, 7:38 pm
DISTRICT ATTORNEY et al.CALKINS, J.[ ¶1] John Doe appeals from a judgment entered in the Superior Court (Kennebec County, Studstrup, J.) granting Evert Fowle, Craig Poulin, and Everett Flannery's motions to dismiss, and dismissing Doe's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. [read post]
23 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
”[5.5] Turning rather to the substance of the point, as already noted, the decision G 1/09 links the question of whether an application is pending with the existence of “substantive rights” in the patent application.[5.6] Decision J 4/11 dealt in detail with the issue of “substantive rights” in this context:“[5] The question is thus whether substantive rights deriving from the grandparent application were still in existence when the… [read post]
17 Aug 2018, 1:00 am by Diane Tweedlie
The fee for the request for re-establishment of rights was received by the EPO on 1 February 2017.VI. [read post]
18 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
The refusal of a loan application does not alter the legal situation of the appellant. [read post]
3 Jul 2015, 1:28 am by JP Sarmiento
Moreover, the Ukrainian Embassy does not intend to issue a No Objection statement for our client’s possible J-1 visa waiver. [read post]
19 Mar 2013, 6:01 pm by oliver randl
However, the filing of drawing Fig. 1 does not replace any Fig. 1 filed earlier in a legal sense. [read post]
10 Aug 2018, 12:56 am by Sander van Rijnswou
However, starting at reasons 5 there is a twist in the tale to the benefit of the appellants. [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]
15 Sep 2017, 6:39 am by Roel van Woudenberg
In this respect, the appellant invoked the principle of good faith or protection of legitimate expectations and cited the allegedly pertinent decision J 14/94. [read post]
22 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
Therefore, the right to file a divisional application still follows from the entitlement acquired by virtue of the parent application.[5] The board sees no reason to depart from the finding of decision J 20/05 [headnote, 3], confirmed by decision G 1/09 [3.2.5], that R 14 prevents the filing of a divisional application if the proceedings for grant concerning the earlier application are stayed. [read post]
21 Jul 2017, 8:02 am by Nico Cordes
Accordingly, German is the language of the proceedings for the parent application.5. [read post]
23 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
Rule 14 EPC 1973 can prevent, as lex specialis, other acts, e.g., as in J 20/05, the filing of a divisional application (see also G 1/09 [3.2.5], and J 9/12 [3,5]). [read post]