Search for: "A----. B v. C----. D"
Results 2561 - 2580
of 10,360
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Nov 2018, 11:06 pm
Main Request, Rule 111(2) EPC2.1 At the time when the contested decision was issued, the requirements for issuing a refusal using a standard form referring to previous communications were set out in the Guidelines for Examination in the EPO, November 2016, C-V, 15.2.According to the first paragraph of Guideline C-V, 15.2, in order to comply with the requirement that a decision be reasoned (Rule 111(2)), it is only possible to use this form of decision where the… [read post]
5 Mar 2024, 7:47 pm
Judge Rao's opinion in Doe v. [read post]
27 Mar 2022, 4:56 pm
D. [read post]
23 Jul 2019, 11:55 pm
(Houle v St. [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 11:19 am
Opn. at p. 11, comparing Guideline §§ 15300.2(c) and 15061(b)(3)); accordingly, “under appellants’ view, the categorical exemptions would serve no purpose; they would apply only when the proposed project is by statute and Guidelines [§]15061[](b)(3), already outside of CEQA review. [read post]
29 Mar 2019, 2:49 pm
” Ayala v. [read post]
3 Apr 2023, 4:48 am
Everything came to a halt” (id 11) and ex B thereto). [read post]
3 Nov 2006, 12:26 pm
In particular, I am wondering how the grants in Claiborne and Rita will impact (a) the reasonableness en banc in progress in the Sixth and Ninth Circuits, (b) the development of reasonableness doctrines in other circuits, (c) the work of the US Sentencing Commission, and (d) the adovacy of DOJ for a Booker fix. [read post]
11 Apr 2010, 5:32 pm
C. [read post]
28 Mar 2013, 3:00 am
Johnson v. [read post]
3 Mar 2022, 3:27 pm
[b.] [read post]
6 Oct 2014, 4:28 am
McDonald’s Corp. v. [read post]
11 Feb 2013, 4:37 am
U.S. v. [read post]
19 Dec 2014, 7:21 am
§101.60(c)(2)(v)). [read post]
12 Mar 2017, 11:14 pm
There are some letters of the alphabet, such as B, C, D, E, P, T, etc., which are recognized as sounding alike. [read post]
23 Mar 2020, 5:40 pm
Barr and Ovalles v. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 4:26 pm
Prob C §21225(b). [read post]
15 Aug 2007, 10:01 pm
Neither company would appear to be a direct infringer of a patent claim reciting steps A, B, C, and D. [read post]
10 Aug 2010, 3:01 pm
Be that as it may, it also contains an interesting passage where the various features of a somewhat unorthodox claim are analysed in view of a novelty assessment:[33] Claim 1 of auxiliary request 11 refers to a liquid composition which (a) comprises an interferon-beta, (b) comprises an amino acid stabilizing agent selected from the group consisting of 0.5% to 5% (w/v) arginine-HC1, 0.50% to 2.0% (w/v) glycine, and 1.47% to 2.94% (w/v) glutamic acid, (c)… [read post]
12 Aug 2016, 10:30 am
A lot of the problem w/abusive litigation is C&D letters, choosing to sue in improper venue; Ds may capitulate before it’s litigated. [read post]
