Search for: "Does 1-99" Results 221 - 240 of 3,303
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Nov 2009, 4:45 pm
T 507/99 submitted three questions to the EBA. [read post]
28 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
Admissibility of the amendments under A 123(3)[5] For the [opponent], modifying claim 1 such that it is now directed to “a railway vehicle” while claim 1 as granted is directed to “a braking control system” amounted to an extension of the protection conferred which contravened A 123(3). [5.1] The Board does not agree. [read post]
28 Oct 2010, 2:14 pm
Even where a defendant's negligence is 99% the cause of the plaintiff's injury or damage, a finding of 1% fault on behalf of a plaintiff will operate as a complete bar to recovery. [read post]
23 Dec 2021, 1:38 am by Roel van Woudenberg
The Board carefully assessed the applicability of Art. 84 EPC as well as of Rule 42(1)(c) and Rule 48(1)(c) EPC as possible legal basis requiring adaptation of the description, and concluded that such basis does not exist (except possible in the case of non-unity). [read post]
3 Jan 2009, 10:28 am
The basic idea is if you are even 1% at fault and the defendant is 99% at fault, you lose. [read post]
11 Jan 2019, 3:20 am
"The train to Haar - new location of the EBAThe consequences if the appeal does not comply with Article 108 EPC are provided by Rule 101(1) EPC: "If the appeal does not comply with Articles 106 to 108, Rule 97 or Rule 99, paragraph 1(b) or (c) or paragraph 2, the Board of Appeal shall reject it as inadmissible, unless any deficiency has been remedied before the relevant period under Article 108 has expired. [read post]
9 Oct 2015, 10:40 am by Staff Writer
  Texas does not recognize degrees of murder, such as first and second degree murder as most people are familiar with from television programs. [read post]
28 May 2019, 3:45 am by Jessica Kroeze
Does the finding that (a disclosure in) a prior art document D1 does not qualify as an accidental anticipation (thus not allowing the use of an undisclosed disclaimer) because it does not fulfill the criterion laid down in G 1/03 that it is so unrelated to and remote from the claimed invention that the skilled person would never have taken it into consideration when making the invention, imply that it is automatically relevant for inventive step? [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]
13 Jan 2015, 7:34 am
Curiously, the phrase used in section 99, "in connection with any business", does not reflect the formula "in the course of trade" which is the norm for civil infringement under section 10 of the same Act, which in turn reflects the words of the English text of the Trade Mark Directive which it implements (the word "business" appears just once in the Directive, in Article 5(3)(d), which speaks of "using the sign on business papers and in… [read post]
31 Oct 2013, 6:00 am by Yosie Saint-Cyr
The federal government submitted in Henderson's case that Bill 99 does not provide the legal basis for a "unilateral declaration of independence by the [Quebec] government." [read post]
29 Sep 2016, 2:08 pm by Gail Cecchettini Whaley
According to the EEOC, it does not disclose EEO-1 data for a specific employer; it only publishes large-scale aggregated EEO-1 data. [read post]
10 May 2012, 5:01 pm by Oliver
The Board noted further that the appellant’s address was missing in the notice of appeal, contrary to the requirements under R 99(1)(a). [read post]